Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

IMMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANKWELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL

(By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HERITABLE SECURITIES AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION LIMITED BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tues day next.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Cyprus (Peacekeeping Force)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of of State for Defence what is the current strength of the British contingent in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): About 800.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most valuable jobs that our defence forces are doing? Does he also agree that it might be useful to hold exercises with other friendly countries, such as Sweden, Canada and Finland, which have shown special interest in international peace keeping operations?

Mr. Mulley: I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the importance of the United Nations force in Cyprus. I am not sure whether it would be practicable to have exercises in this particular kind of activity, but certainly I would consider that. I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the rôle that our forces and the other national forces are playing in Cyprus.

Mr. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman please confirm that the two sovereign base areas are crucial to the successful administration of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus? Will he, therefore, resist the attempts of some of his hon. Friends to obtain the withdrawal of Britain from the two sovereign base areas, which are bases in a most important area of NATO?

Mr. Mulley: I have told the hon. Member on previous occasions, and I repeat, that we have no intention in pre sent circumstances of changing the level of forces in Cyprus. I agree that the logistic support that we offer to the United Nations force in Cyprus is very important indeed for the operations of that force.

Defence Cuts

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make


a further statement about the implementation of defence cuts.

Mr. Mulley: I have nothing to add to what was said in the 1977 Statement on the Defence Estimates—Cmnd. 6735—and what I subsequently told the House in the defence debate on 22nd March.

Mr. Goodhart: That was not very much However, as it is plain that following the Prime Minister's visit to BAOR the Government have no prospect of pressing offset agreement talks with the Germans with any degree of success, will the right hon. Gentleman now give an absolute assurance that the strength of BAOR will not be cut any further?

Mr. Mulley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that there is no prospect of a successful offset negotiation. There are Questions about that later on the Order Paper. However, I repeat the assurance that has been given many times: we have no intention of reducing the size of BAOR pending what one would hope would be a successful out come of the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations in Vienna.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Secretary of State rebut and resist Lord Chalfont's propaganda in his long and biased BBC programme and in his article in The Times asking for still more arms spending? Instead, will my right hon. Friend tell NATO chiefs that he sticks by the Labour Party commitment at the General Election to cut our defence spending to the same proportion of gross national product as that of the other European NATO allies?

Mr. Mulley: I think that it would be asking too much if I had to rebut statements of all kinds by commentators in the Press, many of which are contradictory. I am afraid that my attendance at the House deprives me of the opportunity of seeing a number of television programmes. I have seen the article in question. However, I think that our position in NATO is well known, and I do not need to elaborate on it now.

Sir Ian Gilmour: No one requires the Secretary of State to rebut the comments of Lord Chalfont. What people require the Secretary of State to do is to rebut his own Left wing a bit. However, in view of the very damaging effect that next

year's proposed cuts will have on our contribution to NATO, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House a little more about what consultations he intends to have with NATO before those cuts are decided upon?

Mr. Mulley: I have already informed the House that it is our intention, after the conclusion of the full review that is now taking place as to the best way of making the cuts—not in our actual expenditure but in our planned higher expenditure for 1978–79—to have full consultations. There will be nearly a year in which to consult, and, of course, both NATO and the House will be informed when we reach conclusions on the reduction of £230 million in the planned expenditure for 1978–79. We have already committed ourselves to NATO to have the fullest consultations.

NATO Nations (Expenditure)

Mr. Churchill: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in fulfilling his commitment, jointly made with allied Ministers at their meeting in Brussels on 7th-8th December 1976, to secure real annual increases in defence expenditure by allied Governments, as outlined in the communiqué concerned.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to discuss with NATO Defence Ministers the implementation of his commitment to secure real annual increases in defence expenditure.

Mr. Mulley: As the communiqué made clear, all members of the Alliance have undertaken to review their contributions in the context of the 1977 force planning exercise, which covers the period up to five years ahead. Any proposals for changes in our expenditure plans would have to be considered during this year's public expenditure survey.

Mr. Churchill: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in paragraph 9 he undertook to do much more than merely review levels of expenditure? Ministers recognise that the achievement of the objective—namely, the countering of the Warsaw Pact build-up—calls for real annual increases in defence expenditure by allied Governments and that that


applies to this country. The right hon. Gentleman signed the document on behalf of the British Government and our NATO allies. Does he stand by that statement or does he repudiate it?

Mr. Mulley: The communiqué was a statement of the consensus of the discussion that took place. There was no question of signing any documents. The sentence that the hon. Gentleman has chosen is in the context of a well-considered NATO view—namely, that we should be concentrating on increased expenditure on new equipment. As I have explained to the House, the percentage that we spend on new equipment compares extremely favourably with that spent by our NATO allies. In that context we are carrying out the intentions of the discussions.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite what he says, the fact that the Government continue cutting in the face of such undertakings can result in an undermining of the confidence of other NATO allies, an undermining of the will of the Government and their commitment to NATO, and an under mining of the whole principle of collective defence that is implicit in NATO? Is he aware that that can only encourage other Governments to do precisely the same? Does he not think that it is about time that he faced the situation?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that that is the case. I know that some Opposition Members are doing their best to undermine our position, but I do not think that they are meeting with very much success. It is well known that our existing forces are making a substantial contribution to NATO. In terms of the percentage of the gross national product that we devote to defence, our spending is in excess of that of our allies, except for two. That is well known and appreciated.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend try to take no notice of the almost permanent panic that seems to sweep the Opposition Benches whenever they think of the Soviet Union and the Red Army? [Interruption.] Will he take note that many of my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] I ask my right hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, to take note of the wave of feeling that immediately came over the Opposition Benches when I mentioned the

Soviet Union and the Red Army. Will my right hon. Friend guard against that and relate our defence expenditure to the realities, about which he knows far more than Opposition Members? Will he refuse to allow himself to be swayed by the Chalfonts and the Opposition Members who remind me of Mr. Forrestal, who dashed out of the Waldorf Astoria screaming that the Red Army was after him?

Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I try to take account of points of view from all quarters of the House.

Mr. Pattie: As NATO Defence Ministers frequently discuss at their meetings the so-called two-way street, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the reported cancellation by the United States of the purchase of the British Skyflash missile in a fit of pique after his Government's reasonable decision to buy the Nimrod project for our airborne early warning requirement?

Mr. Mulley: I am not aware that the United States forces had placed a contract for Skyflash. They have had some interest in Skyflash, which is a very good missile which has been developed from the United States Sparrow missile. I still hope that it will be possible for them to make a purchase, but there were no conditions and no contracts under discussion. Throughout the whole of the Nimrod-AWACS argument I refused to be involved in bargaining arrangements of that sort.

Military Aircraft (Replacement)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals have been made for, or discussions commenced on, a successor, in production terms, to the MRCA, including Air Staff Target 403 for a Harrier/Jaguar replacement in 1990; what approximate estimate he makes of the research and development and production costs; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): Full production of the Tornado started only last year, and it is too early to be considering its successor. Neither the Jaguar nor the Harrier will need to be replaced for some years, although feasibility studies of their replacement are being made.

Mr. Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that the aircraft manufacturers' private circular is already discussing this project? Secondly, is it not true that the pressure from armament firms for certain weapons helps to determine the shape and size of our colossal arms spending?

Dr. Gilbert: I was not aware of the first point that my hon. Friend makes, but I see nothing surprising in it. As for his second point—no, I do not think so. Our spending on armaments is determined by our perception of the nature of the threat and what we need to spend to meet it.

Mr. Tebbit: Which fighter aircraft does the Minister think the Royal Air Force will have in its inventory in the early 1980s to ensure air superiority over the battle-front?

Dr. Gilbert: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the early 1980s we shall still have in service a number of existing air craft. In addition, we shall have the ADV version of the Tornado coming along in the 1980s.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what was said about the new equipment and the statement made by NATO in December last is absolutely untrue and is not within that environment at all? Is it not to be welcomed that we are having this new aero plane? Will it not fulfil over a long time the needs that we have of it?

Dr. Gilbert: I accept that by the 1990s we shall need a replacement for the Harrier and Jaguar. That is probably as far as I want to go at this stage.

Royal Air Force, Binbrook

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to RAF Binbrook.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Brotherton: If the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary goes to RAF Binbrook, or to any other Air Force station, will thought be given to the problem of payment of rent for married quarters, especially for the more junior ranks at RAF Binbrook and many other Air Force stations throughout the country?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the junior airmen are having to claim rent rebates and cannot afford to switch on such things as night storage central heating? Does he not consider such a situation to be a disgrace?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Quartering charges are a matter that is under review. It has been under review by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and I have no doubt that an announcement will be made shortly. The criteria used by the Review Body have been used under successive Administrations and we have not changed anything. The RAF and the Ministry of Defence are carrying out considerable improvements in respect of thermal insulation of buildings, and we hope that that will go a long way towards solving some of the heating problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Churchill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year his Department behaved in a way that even the worst Rachmanite landlords would have been shy of—namely, giving a retrospective rent increase more than one month back dated? Will he give the House and the Armed Forces an assurance that that will not be repeated this year?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which covers these matters, issues its report some time after 1st April. Any pay increases or quartering charges will be laid down by the report. I repudiate entirely that the Ministry of Defence, either in the Air Force Department or any other Department, acts in a scandalous way. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to do a service to the Armed Forces, perhaps he will try to act more responsibly in the way in which he conducts himself in Parliament.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: While I accept that Conservative Members are not the friends of the other ranks in the forces or anywhere else, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that it might be possible to reduce the rents of houses for other ranks by trying to get rid of some of the excess housing stock which the Department holds in various parts of the country, some of which has been empty for a long time?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not accept that either side of the House has a monopoly


of compassion and care for our Armed Forces. The Ministry is taking big steps to try to dispose of property which is surplus to our requirements.

BAOR (Air Defence Provision)

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the air defence provision for forward troops in BAOR; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Gilbert: At present, yes, but we are devoting considerable resources to enhancing our air defence capability in the face of an increasing threat.

Mr. Pattie: Can the Minister assure the House that the optimum number of Rapier fire units have been provided to give the maximum defensive capability to our BAOR troops in the defined area which has been allocated to Rapier for air defence? Will all the Army's visual fire units be converted to the Blindfire system?

Dr. Gilbert: I think that the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". I have no reason to believe that it is anything other. I think that "Yes" is also the answer to the question about conversion—I think so.

Fishery Protection Aircraft

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of hours to be flown by maritime reconnaissance aircraft on fishery protection duties.

Mr. Wellbeloved: As agreed with the Fisheries Departments, we are currently flying about 180 hours a month. I expect this level of activity to continue.

Mr. Tebbit: Are any limits imposed on the number of hours which may be flown on fishery protection duties by the need to conserve the airframe life of Nimrod for its main purpose into the end of the century? Does the Minister feel that there is a need for a less expensive aircraft for fishery protection duties?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The number of hours flown by the RAF with its Nimrod air craft is entirely determined by the requests we receive from the consumer Departments, the Ministry of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Department of Agriculture. They asked for 180 hours, and we supply them. If they asked for an increase, we could supply it from the Nimrod force. The limitation on surveillance of the North Sea is not determined by the number of aircraft or the length of life of the aircraft. We are considering a number of possible means of carrying out surveillance of fishing fleets in the North Sea, but until the surveys are complete I cannot add anything more useful to the discussion than I have said to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in answer to previous Questions.

Mr. Goodhew: The Minister seems to have missed the whole point of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), which is that aircraft in use have a limited life. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that if the Nimrod aircraft are vital for surveillance in anti-submarine work—and from his answer he seemed not to be aware—the more he uses them for fishery protection the less he will have them for their proper use? Is he considering the use of other aircraft?

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentle man studies the situation with a little more care, he will observe that one of the reasons why the Nimrod aircraft was chosen for the role was that it can fulfil the fishery protection role and its long-range maritime reconnaissance role without any detriment to either task. That is one of the prime reasons why we are using Nimrod in preference to any other aircraft.

NATO Defence Ministers

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet other NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to have a meeting with NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Mulley: I plan to attend the spring ministerial meetings in Brussels next month. The Euro group will meet on 16th May and the Defence Planning Commit tee on 17th and 18th May.

Mr. Marshall: What does the Secretary of State propose to do at those meetings to remove the feeling of total uncertainty in the minds of our partners, when one year's White Paper talks about irreducible minima for defence commitment's and we have changes every year? What will he do to reassure our NATO partners?

Mr. Mulley: The exaggerated feeling of uncertainty and lack of confidence is confined almost exclusively to the Opposition Benches. I do not find it in talks with my ministerial colleagues. We are one of the very few nations that publish a five-year forward inflation-proof de fence expenditure statement. The cuts we have announced have been on planned in creased expenditure, whereas most of the other NATO countries go on a year-to-year basis, and in many cases we do not even know—because we are not sure what is their inflation allowance—what their annual budgets amount to in real terms. Therefore, I tell Conservative Members that the widespread dismay we hear about at Question Time is largely confined to their own circles.

Mr. Cronin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO forces are more than sufficient at present to deter aggression from the Warsaw Pact forces, and that in terms of proportion of gross domestic product our contribution to NATO is much higher than that of most of our allies?

Mr. Mulley: I think that on any of the normal standards of judgment that is right. It is also widely recognised in terms of the effective contribution of all-professional forces. It is not the case that we are thought by our allies not to be discharging the obligations we have undertaken.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent statement by the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic that the defence plans of Britain and our NATO allies depend on having two and a half months' warning of attack? If that figure is anywhere near

accurate, are not any defence cuts totally irresponsible?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that that is a fair summary of what the Deputy SACLANT said. It was said in the con text of planning exercises for possible NATO operations outside the normal NATO area concerned with shipping routes. I have it from the highest military sources in NATO that the Alliance is now in better shape than it was three years ago.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: When we keep talking about superiority over our so-called opponents, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it encourages them further to develop their fire power? Does he not agree that, in so far as we must maintain strength to make sure that a war does not break out, NATO, including the United States, with the Cruise missile, is at least five years in advance of Russian technology? Therefore, is it not time that we started talking more about a reduction of arms than about increasing them?

Mr. Mulley: Reductions in arms depend on the successful outcome of multi lateral international negotiations, such as the force reduction talks in Vienna, or bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union in SALT rather than any unilateral decision. But I agree with my hon. Friend that NATO's posture is wholly that of deterrence and that the deterrent depends on all three elements—conventional, theatre-nuclear and strategic-nuclear weapons.

Sir John Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the recently-published report of the United States Senate committee of inquiry that, first, NATO's southern wing is a shambles, secondly that the Warsaw Pact Powers can mobilise for an attack within a few days and that the NATO forces are in no position to resist them, and thirdly that stocks of essential war materials, including armoured vehicles and ammunition, are deplorably low?

Mr. Mulley: I have great respect for the two Senators who produced the report. Perhaps their language was a little dramatic. I am satisfied that NATO's basic posture—namely, to make any aggression a reckless gamble on the part


of potential enemies—still exists and that the priority must be to strengthen the Alliance's conventional capability, which is what we are aiming to do with our defence expenditure.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has the Secretary of State proposed to other NATO Ministers that they should follow the example of France and America, which have an arrangement with the Kremlin for immediate communication should a nuclear weapon be despatched by accident?

Mr. Mulley: It is important to consider these possibilities, but whether my hon. Friend would go so far as to suggest that we should follow the French example and increase defence expenditure, particularly in the nuclear category, I am not at all sure.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Will the Secretary of State clarify his view of the communiqués issued after NATO meetings? Does he agree that by his behaviour today and since the last NATO meeting he appears to think that the communiqués are a lot of waffle to which he need pay no attention? Does he believe that neither he nor the Government are bound by NATO communiqués?

Mr. Mulley: Neither I nor the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) would regard a communiqué as the equivalent of a binding document, but naturally one wishes to carry out the consensus of NATO meetings. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? We are talking about communiqués, and I draw his attention to the fact that the Defence Planning Committee—

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is Question Time an occasion when hon. Members ask questions of Ministers, or is it a time for Ministers to ask other people questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is a fair point of order. I hope that we shall not continue this, or people will be asking me questions.

Mr. Mulley: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I shall not ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman but merely inform the House that a Defence Planning Committee communiqué—the same

as in December—said that the then Ministers undertook
to concentrate their current efforts on the improvements recommended, taking account of the need recognised at their December meeting to allocate more resources for modernisation and re-equipment of the NATO forces".
That was in June 1973, in the same year as the then Conservative Administration cut defence expenditure three times—and by a bigger amount in that one year than this Government have done during two years.

German Federal Republic (Offset Payments)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what payments have been made by the Federal Government in each of the past five years towards the costs of British forces in Germany; and what further progress has been made in obtaining adequate offset arrangements.

Mr. Mulley: Under the terms of the 1971 Anglo-German Offset Agreement which expired on 31st March 1976, Her Majesty's Government received a total of DM550 million in five equal annual instalments. As for the second part of the Question, I must refer my hon. Friend again to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th January last.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position in respect of deutschemarks and the pound—which means an intolerable £500 million drag on the balance of payments and which is effectively a transfer from poor Britain to rich Germany—cannot continue? Can he give the House some hope that, following the Prime Minister's visit to the British Army of the Rhine and his meeting there with the German Chancellor, his right hon. Friend will not come back empty-handed?

Mr. Mulley: I should make it clear that the Prime Minister's visit to BAOR, which I much welcome, is not for the purpose of negotiating the details of an offsetting agreement, which, of course—following the precedents of successive Governments—is a matter for the Foreign Secretary.
I am hopeful that a successful offset agreement will be achieved because, in


the present circumstances at any rate, there is an imbalance between our foreign exchange position and that of the West German Government.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: When the Secretary of State discusses these financial matters with the Germans, will he make sure that they—and, indeed, our NATO allies—understand what was enunciated a few months ago by the Minister of State when he said that in future our defence spending would be conditioned by our perception of the threat, which is a good deal different from the Government's previous policy regarding economic and financial vicissitudes or comparison with the expenditure of other countries? This is a new deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to our allies?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now on a rather different point. The question of offset is a matter between allies of trying to ease the foreign exchange burden of fulfilling our NATO commitments, which, as I have already confirmed this afternoon, we have no intention of changing.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many years—during which we have been obliged to accept these heavy outgoings—a considerable economic burden has been imposed on the British economy which has helped the Germans to go ahead industrially while we have been held back? Is it not now high time that we made haste in demanding that a change should take place in these arrangements so that we no longer have to accept the heavy burden by which we are, in fact, subsidising the West German economy?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend has put the matter in colourful terms, but it is the case that the foreign exchange benefit to the recipient country of foreign forces is offset by the loss of foreign exchange to us and to those who station forces there, although the stationing of forces in Germany is part of our NATO collective defence arrangements. It is on this basis that we are seeking a continuation of the offset agreement. The detailed negotiations are in the hands of the Foreign Secretary, and I hope that he will succeed shortly.

Mr. Goodhart: While one does not expect the Prime Minister and the West German Chancellor to discuss the details of the offset agreement, is it not absurd that they should have spent hours together visiting BAOR without discussing the general principle of the subject at all?

Mr. Mulley: Since I have not had the pleasure of seeing the Prime Minister because he is still in Germany, I do not know what he and the Chancellor may have discussed in the time they spent together, but I hope very much—and this would be the wish of all the forces in Germany—that they spent most of their time discussing the defence matters of the units they were visiting.

Forces Personnel (Rent Rebates)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many private soldiers and leading aircraftmen are on rent rebate.

Dr. Gilbert: Some 4,036 private soldiers and 59 leading aircraftmen.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the Minister of State agree that that is an appallingly high figure? Is he aware that 17 per cent. of all other ranks in Berkshire's county regiment are on rent rebate? What is he doing to persuade the Armed Forces Review Body to expedite its survey of the problem?

Dr. Gilbert: Is it not for me to intervene in the deliberations of a body which has been appointed by and which reports directly to the Prime Minister. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the qualification for rebate, at any income level, is dependent on the size of family. A 1975 report said that it would be out of the question to adjust all rates of pay so as to disqualify everyone from the application of the rebate scheme.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the Minister make representations to the Review Body so that next time there is a pay rise for the forces we can increase allowances and go back to the old system of increasing allowances rather than pay? Would there not be an advantage in that for the men and for recruitment generally?

Dr. Gilbert: I take note of that point, and no doubt the Review Body is fully


seized of these matters. It looks carefully into the pay and conditions of the forces.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Minister take steps to give relief to soldiers in Northern Ireland who are paying particularly large charges for their accommodation and who are living under conditions that are hazardous and economically unfavourable compared with those of soldiers in other parts of the world?

Dr. Gilbert: There is another Question on the Order Paper on this subject, but the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army indicated during the Army debate a few days ago that he would call for a special report on this matter.

Mr. Churchill: Does the Minister accept that the Ministry of Defence is in a special situation as both the gaffer and the landlord and that it must exercise the latter responsibility with great care? Is it not a scandal that more than 4,000 young soldiers, whom we are asking to risk their lives in the defence of this country and in fighting the war against terrorism in Northern Ireland, should be on the bread line?

Dr. Gilbert: I think that the hon. Gentleman should use more temperate language. Those are not the circum stances. I repeat that at any given income level qualification for rent rebate is dependent on the size of the family. There fore, the younger a soldier is, the less likely it is that he will have a rent rebate.

Northern Ireland

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the operations of the Special Air Service in South Armagh.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): The Special Air Service continues to operate with success in South Armagh and elsewhere in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind the strategic importance of South Armagh, will the Minister resist any attempt to reduce the strength of the SAS in that area? In order that the specialist skills of the regiment may be deployed in other parts of the Province, what plans, if any, has he to increase the strength of the regiment?

Mr. Brown: Where the SAS operates is a matter for the GOC. I am not pre pared to discuss the details of deployment. Equally, it would not be in the interests of security to discuss the numbers deployed.

Mr. Kilfedder: Even though some members of the SAS may be taught to speak with an Ulster accent, surely that is no answer to the problem presented by the terrorists in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to deal with them is to create an anti-terrorist force which will seek out and destroy the bombers and the gun men?

Mr. Brown: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that all the units of the British Army at present in Northern Ireland represent an anti-terrorist force.

Mr. Powell: I agree that it is appropriate that the Minister should not comment on actual deployment. In view, however, of the proven success of this unit in South Armagh, will he ensure that the Army command is particularly quick to switch this force to other parts of the Province which are threatened in the same way?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that the point made by the right hon. Gentleman will not be lost on the GOC. The SAS will operate wherever it is needed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the task of the SAS in Northern Ireland would be rendered much easier if certain politicians ceased making inflammatory speeches in the Province?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we must seek long and earnestly for a political solution in Northern Ireland, I agree with him.

Ronald Biggs

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances Ronald Biggs, wanted by the police for the Great Train Robbery, was allowed on board HMS "Danae" at Rio de Janeiro.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for The Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): As I stated in the reply I gave


to my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall) on 22nd April, ships' companies are encouraged to meet the local community but are expected to show discretion in offering hospitality. I understand that some junior ratings from HMS "Danae" received an invitation to dinner from Mr. Biggs and responded by inviting him on board while they stowed their shopping. When the officers in charge had identified the ratings' guest as Mr. Biggs, he was asked to leave the ship. Mr. Biggs will not be allowed back on board Her Majesty's ships.

Mr. Lipton: Why did the Ministry resort to the disreputable ruse of trying to forestall an awkward Oral Question by planting a stooge Question and Written Reply last Friday, which did not appear in Hansard until Saturday? That kind of trick does not go down very well with me, anyhow. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the stooge Question on Friday, in reply to which he said:
Mr. Biggs will not be allowed back on board any of Her Majesty's ships when some ships of the group return to Rio de Janeiro on 23rd April."—[Official Report, 22nd April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 168.]
Is the limitation on Mr. Biggs limited only to the ships which are going back to Rio de Janeira on 23rd April? Has an instruction been given to all naval vessels that whenever they go to Rio de Janeiro they must not have Mr. Biggs on board?

Mr. Duffy: On the second point, I said in my formal reply:
Mr. Biggs will not be allowed back on board Her Majesty's ships.
On the first point, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth was quicker off the mark last week than my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton).

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: While it is frequently enjoyable to meet the local inhabitants—sailors from Her Majesty's ships do a great job in that respect—is it not a fact that Her Majesty's ship is British territory, and should not Mr. Biggs have been clapped in irons?

Mr. Duffy: There was no power to arrest Mr. Biggs on board Her Majesty's ship—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and no such arrest of Mr. Biggs was authorised.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is making an official visit to British Forces in Germany, I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 3rd February.

Mr. Cartwright: When the Prime Minister next meets leaders of the TUC, what kind of Government action will he be able to report on the issues which Lord Allen yesterday described as being essential to create the necessary climate for a phase 3 of the incomes policy, particularly extra funds for the National Enterprise Board, real tax cuts for the low paid and a review of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Foot: We are certainly studying all those questions, which were put to us not only by Lord Allen but by the TUC generally. There is significance in all the different points, and we are studying them all.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is more than one TUC and that the Welsh TUC, which met on Saturday, came out strongly in favour of a legislative assembly for Wales?

Mr. Foot: I certainly follow carefully what is said by the Welsh TUC on all these matters. We have fully taken into account what the Welsh TUC said on the subject of devolution, and we hope that our proposals will reflect what it said.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Did my right hon. Friend find the TUC complaining about the ever-increasing cost of foodstuffs which are largely attributable to the common agricultural policy? Does he agree that it is the poorer sections of the community who are largely affected and are essentially represented by Labour Members? Does he also agree, as presumably he always has done, that our entry into the Common Market was a tragic mistake?

Mr. Foot: The Government have had brought to their attention—not that they needed it in that sense—the increases in price which have occurred because of our membership of the Common Market, Certainly that matter has been raised when members of the TUC have come to see us. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement to the House tomorrow on this subject.

Mr. Adley: As the AUEW has today refused to make the strike at Heathrow official and as the strike has been engendered as a result of the Government's incomes policy, which I have no wish to discuss at the moment, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government would now be doing right by the overwhelming majority of moderate workers at Heathrow in condemning the activities of a handful of militant trouble makers and supporting both the management and the majority of workers who want to get on with their job and not be disrupted?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the sooner the strike at Heathrow can be brought to an end, the better it will be for everyone concerned, including those who have been on strike. We hope that that will happen. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's account of why the difficulties at Heathrow have arisen.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUMBERSIDE

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to pay an official visit to Humberside.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Ridley: Does the Lord President think that the granting of development area status to Grimsby will have any effect on the by-election that is now going on there?

Mr. Foot: I think the hon. Gentleman put his Question down before the alteration in the development area status had been made. If he had known, he might perhaps have withdrawn the Question.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept the gratitude of the

people in a great many parts of the county for the decision to extend development area status in Humberside, and will he look again at the possibility of further extensions to other parts of the county?

Mr. Foot: Representations have been made by a large number of people in Humberside that this extension in development area status should occur. I believe that representations were even made by some members of the Conservative Party in the area. I am sorry that Conservative Members should have received the announcement so churlishly.

Mr. Wood: If the Prime Minister is unable to visit Humberside, will the Leader of the House explain why Bridlington, with a much higher rate of unemployment, has not been included in the development area whereas Grimsby, for reasons which we cannot quite under stand, has been included?

Mr. Foot: There are variations in the unemployment rate in different places. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand, one of the factors that we took into account was the position in Hull was well as Grimsby. If there was to be an improvement in the development area status of the Hull area, we believed that it was only right that there should be an improvement in Grimsby as well.

Mr. Corbett: As the Prime Minister is not going to Humberside, will my right hon. Friend persuade him to have an urgent meeting with the proprietors of the London Evening News and Evening Standard and urge on them the need to come clean with the 6,000 workers employed by both papers about their plans to cut the throat of at least the Evening Standard under the guise of giving London a new paper?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an excellent example of a question which is not related at all to the Question on the Order Paper. We might as well just have Questions to the Prime Minister without an Order Paper.

Mr. Prior: Will the right hon. Gentle man look at the fact that only last night at any rate it was impossible to find out which parts of the Grimsby area came within the new district and which parts


came without? Does that not suggest that it was all done in a bit of a hurry and for a very specific purpose?

Mr. Foot: I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so suspicious. Considering that some of his hon. Friends, perhaps belatedly, were joining with others in asking that the Government should take this course, I think he should accept what has been proposed more generously. If there is any difficulty about defining the areas, I hope that we shall be able to sort it out as speedily as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORNWALL

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he plans to pay an official visit to Cornwall.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Blaker: For the benefit of any Liberal voters who may still exist in Cornwall, will the Lord President mention any Socialist legislation which has been dropped as a result of the Labour-Liberal pact?

Mr. Foot: I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is also a pretty broad question. If the hon. Gentleman is to extract a reply on this complicated subject, he will have to put down a more precise Question than that.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if he gives in to the faint cry of Welsh Socialists for devolution he will get another bellow from Cornwall for similar treatment?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is mistaken on that subject. A question was put to me earlier about the Welsh TUC. My hon. Friend should take into account that the Welsh TUC is strongly in favour of devolution. Moreover, he should take into account that every Welsh Labour candidate at the last General Election included devolution in his manifeso, and that is one of the reasons why we secured our majority.

Sir K. Joseph: For the information of any remaining Liberals in Cornwall, will the Leader of the House tell the

House, "Yes" or "No", whether in the light of the Liberal pact this Administration has or has not ceased to be a committed Socialist Administration?

Mr. Foot: The Government will continue to bring forward their legislative proposals and present them to the House as we have in the past. We, of course, seek to secure a full majority for those measures. We think that that is a good precaution to take. But the right hon. Gentleman should not be so impatient. We are bringing forward much of this legislation as speedily as we can, but we shall speed it up a bit in order to assist the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Penhaligon: I can assure the Leader of the House that there are still some Liberals left in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not many"] The fear of the Conservative Opposition about Cornwall seems to be that the agreement might work. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the possibility of visiting Cornwall since, despite the Government's efforts, Cornwall now has the highest unemployment of any county in Great Britain?

Mr. Foot: It is certainly the case that the level of unemployment in Cornwall is extremely serious. No one can possibly doubt that. That is one of the reasons why the Government have been seeking to take measures, such as special development agency measures, in order to assist. If he could do so, I am sure that the Prime Minister would be glad to go to Cornwall to visit the Liberals there and the even larger and growing number of Labour supporters.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would not the Prime Minister do well to hurry to Cornwall so that he could see how the fishing vessels survey regulations are being enforced there, because I am sure that they are just as unpopular in Grimsby as they are in Cornwall?

Mr. Foot: I know that in his distant past the hon. Gentleman has had a rather good record with regard to the fishery business because he did not fall for all the proposals made by his own party. Some of the present difficulties in the fishing industry might have been avoided had those proposals not been carried out. One of the other good reasons for the Prime Minister hastening to Cornwall is


that he would not have to spend too long in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26th April.

Mr. Corbett: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26th April.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
Today my right hon. Friend is in the Federal Republic of Germany, where he is visiting British Forces.

Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister returns, will my right hon. Friend tell him that if he meets the NUM leaders he will find that they are getting increasingly impatient with the long delay over the construction of Drax B? In his own capacity, will my right hon. Friend assure the House today, as well as the Parsons workers and the others involved in the construction of Drax B, that the interfering Mr. Weinstock's plans to scoop the pool have been thwarted and that the Parsons workers' jobs are not at risk?

Mr. Foot: The Prime Minister, like many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), is deeply concerned about the whole position regarding Drax B and how we are to deal with the situation. I have nothing to add to what was said yesterday by the Secretary of State for Industry, who is having further consultations with the companies and with the National Enterprise Board in order to seek to find a solution to the problem of the restructuring of the industry.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend urge upon the Prime Minister the imperative need to contact the proprietors of the London Evening News and Evening Standard to get them to come clean with the 6,000 workers whom they employ and whose jobs are being bought and sold as if they were pieces of paper and machinery in an attempt to preserve at least one London evening newspaper? Is it not disgraceful that people who hand out lectures on the way industrial

relations should work, operate behind darkened doors and windows in this way?

Mr. Foot: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. He is perfectly justified in raising the matter. I think that this afternoon there is to be a deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and representatives of the unions of the different offices to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who will describe the legal position in which he is placed. When the Prime Minister returns, I shall seek to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. McCrindle: When the Prime Minister returns will he pay immediate attention to the April unemployment figures, published today, which shows a continuing level of 5·9 per cent. unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, in particular, be bringing forward any proposal to relieve the high number of school leavers who are now unemployed?

Mr. Foot: The level of unemployment is extremely serious. One of the most objectionable features is the number of school leavers who are unemployed, but if the general figure is taken there is a fall in the seasonally adjusted figure which I am sure the whole House will welcome. But that does not alter the fact that the figures are still extremely serious.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Fitt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat of a general strike in Northern Ireland next Monday called by the Ulster Unionist Action Council.
Yesterday afternoon in Belfast, an organisation calling itself the Ulster Unionist Action Committee met. Among its members is a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He, in collusion and alliance with other people in Northern Ireland, and some of those who formed the Ulster Unionist Action Committee


are members of the Ulster Defence Association, which has the support of other organisations which are illegal.
Yesterday afternoon, the Ulster Unionist Action Committee issued an ultimatum to Her Majesty's Government. In this morning's newspapers in Northern Ireland, advertisements appeared to the effect that if Her Majesty's Government at Westminster did not comply with the demands which have been made by this organisation in relation to security, and which are allied to the demand that this Government and Parliament implement the Convention report discussed at the recent Northern Ireland Convention, it would call a general strike next Monday in Northern Ireland.
We have already had precedents for this type of action in the events which took place in 1974 and which brought about the downfall of the legally-elected Northern Ireland Executive at that time. Those of us living in Northern Ireland remember only too well the chaos, disruption, disgrace and despair then occasioned, and, from the threats that we have heard in the last few days, it would appear that a strike of exactly the same proportions, if not more severe, is threatened for next Monday.
This is a matter of the most urgent importance. The threat is an open defiance of the British Government and Parliament. It is Fascist in its purpose. I believe that the House should debate the matter so that everything entailed in this most dangerous situation can be discussed and if necessary the gauntlet thrown down by Fascists in Northern Ireland taken up by this democratic Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asks leave, under Standing Order No. 9, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat of a general strike in Northern Ireland next Monday called by the Ulster Unionist Action Council".
The hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me notice this morning of his intention. I have listened carefully to his submission. The strike is threatened for next Monday. It is at present a threat. I am directed by the House to take into

account the various factors contained in Standing Order No. 9, and I have done so. I am afraid that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Employment and Training Act 1973 (Temporary Powers Continuation) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Ordered,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Ordered,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation (Variation) Scheme 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ashton.]

ANIMAL WELFARE

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the export of live animals for slaughter; and for connected purposes.
It is appropriate that, mid-way through Animal Welfare Year, the House should be able to consider again the question of the export of live animals for slaughter. When the House decided in January 1975 by a narrow majority to resume this vile trade, it was against a background of the recommendation in the O'Brien Report that the go-ahead should be allowed, but with conditions stated in paragraph 21, which said:
… the issue of further export licences should continue to be suspended until accept able and enforceable conditions can be introduced to ensure that the welfare of the animals is safeguarded with greater certainty.
That statement in the O'Brien Report is often overlooked.
It is true that there have been big developments in welfare regulations within the EEC, but as the British Farmer &amp; Stockbreeder, the official


journal of the NFU, stated in its issue of 24th April 1976,
Unhappily, being bound by a directive does not automatically mean that it is universally obeyed, and there is no doubt that vigilance is still needed.
That is the understatement of both last year and this year. Our own vets, either with the Ministry or privately, try to enforce compliance with the various animal regulations, but they do not succeed. The Ministry does not know, for example, even the number of separate consignments of animals sent abroad for slaughter. All it knows is the number of animals sent abroad.
In the first 18 months since this trade was resumed, veterinary officers went with 39 consignments to the port or airport where they were embarked. They went with 17 consignments of breeding animals to the port of disembarkation. In just three of these 56 cases, the animals were accompanied to their destination—I say "destination", but it would be more accurate to say their "declared destination" because the export documents simply ask for a declaration of destination and there can be no certainty of where the animals actually end up. On that rate of inspection, how can anyone claim that the acceptable and enforceable conditions for which the O'Brien report called are in operation?
Indeed, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made this point in our debate on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year, when he said:
… we are not responsible for what happens on French soil. We can only seek to influence the veterinary profession and the authorities in other countries"—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3rd February 1976; c. 401.]
That was an honest and prophetic statement. While acknowledging my hon. Friend's genuine concern for animal welfare, I must comment "He can say that again".
Only this morning I have received a report of one specific incident of wanton breaches of animal welfare regulations, both national and international, on French soil. It comes from Chief Superintendent Butfield of the RSPCA, and concerns a consignment of nine Charollais bullocks which were put

aboard a ferry just before midnight at Dover on the evening of 20th April. That means that their last food and water at the lairage would have been at about 10.30 p.m. local time.
The animals came off the ferry at Calais at 04.30 local time on 21st April, and did not leave the customs area until 10.17 in a Bedford lorry, index number EUT 523C. Chief Superintendent Butfield and his companions, Deputy Chief Superintendent Flint and Mr. Tasker, report that the lorry drove at an exceedingly slow rate. About 40 kilometres from Calais, it had to brake hard at a junction, when the body broke away and the bullocks were thrown forward. Jack chains were used to straighten the body and bars were welded on to the lorry in a seeming attempt to hold it together. At no stage were the animals removed from that lorry.
The two men driving the lorry drove, with stops of a maximum of 30 minutes, to Ventimiglia in Northern Italy, arriving there just before midnight on Friday 22nd April—in other words, 48 hours after the animals had been taken aboard the ferry. The drivers were unable to water or feed the animals. That means that for 48 hours these animals were not offloaded, fed, watered or rested. When they arrived at Ventimiglia there was about 18 inches of slurry on the floor of the lorry. Four bales of hay or straw were on the roof of the lorry but they were untouched. Chief Superintendent Butfield believes that the lorry was unsuitable for its purpose, and that seems to be the reason that it was travelling so slowely.
I stress that at no time from Calais to Ventimiglia was the lorry out of the sight of the three trained RSPCA observers. This was not a posse of people who could be described as animal welfare cranks. The three men were trained and experienced in the special investigations and that lends added weight to their evidence. My example was one case followed at random.
How can each consignment on a journey of that kind be checked in practice? There is a system of export certification of animals in the United Kingdom. With as many as 1,000 animals a week being dealt with on different sites there is no way in which the vets involved can actually inspect each animal for which they


sign a certificate. Every animal is supposed to have a veterinary examination to ensure that it is fit to be shipped. Every animal is supposed to have at least 10 hours' rest in an approved lairage before shipping.
Does anyone doubt that these regulations are being breached? How can it be possible for every ear tag to be checked and for every animal to be inspected when such numbers are involved? It would be incredible if the Ministry or the private veterinary surgeons had either the numbers or the time to carry out that job.
In the Veterinary Record of 12th March, Mr. W. B. Cartmell of the Veterinary Hospital, Wickham, Hants, stated that at Dover 40 calves out of a batch of 75 were rejected for being under weight. He said that two days later they were sent from lairage at Southampton. Vets are being asked to sign, blind, documents which attest to them having ensured that the lorries in which the animals travel are disinfected and that calves are under 14 days of age when there is no recording system to check.
These are the facts of this trade behind the so-called assurances contained in the rules and regulations. These abuses are happening when animals that are being sent abroad for slaughter are on our shores and under our control. How much greater must be the risks once they have left to cross the Channel?
It is said that sections of the agricultural industry rely on this trade. Last year 250,000 calves, 300,000 fat sheep and lambs as well as a number of horses were sent abroad. How can it pay a farmer to sell his stock on the hoof with the quality no more than guessed at in a market place, against the sureness of selling on a deadweight and grade basis and then moving the carcass?
One might ask whether our abattoirs can cope. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made available £20 million to help with the modernisation of abattoirs. There is still much to be done. When asked last week whether there was sufficient abattoir capacity to deal with all animals that are sent for slaughter abroad, the Minister said.
I have little doubt that they could have been handled by export-approved abattoirs if the trade had so determined."—[Official Report, 21st April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 343.]
The situation is worse than that. The British Farmer and Stockbreeder reported on 26th March this year that at a Liverpool slaughterhouse the staff had been cut by 22 to 50 while the Manchester abattoir was running at only 43 per cent. capacity and losing £400,000 a year. It is not only that. We are spending more than £2½ million a day on importing meat and meat preparations. We have also the additional lunacy of buying back skins, hides and by-products which affects employment here. For example, a skin can represent as much as 10 per cent. of the value of a lamb.
Public concern about the welfare of animals that are exported for slaughter led to the setting up of the Balfour Committee in 1957 and the so-called Balfour assurances which were supposed to allay our concern. About 16 years later in 1973 the trade was suspended and another inquiry was set up because of public concern.
I hope that no one doubts the strength of public concern about this issue. That concern is reflected by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and a range of other local and national organisations. The General Synod of the Church of England is due to debate animal welfare in the summer. Last week I collected a petition that was signed by 2,000 of my constituents living in a small part of the area. Events such as those involving the bullocks aboard the MV "El Tambo", in which the Prime Minister took such an interest, appeared on television and action was taken. But day after day other incidents go undetected.
These animals cannot speak for them selves, but we can speak for them. I urge the House to allow me to bring in this Bill. Just as the trade in human beings 150 years ago shamed those who were engaged in it, the same applies today with this vile and shameful trade in animals.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robin Corbett.

ANIMAL WELFARE (EXPORT OF LIVE ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER)

Mr. Robin Corbett accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the export of live animals for slaughter; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th May and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (MOBILITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin this important debate, I remind the House that it will be interrupted at 7 o'clock for private business.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is now nine months since the Secretary of State announced the Government's decision to phase out the invalid trike. Since then hon. Members in all parts of the House have listened to a mounting volume of protest. My post bag—and I am sure that it is not unique—reflects that protest. On no other single issue have I received a more persistent or more worried correspondence.
Some of the letters published in the Press have reflected much more than mere anxiety and have shown a deep bitterness. I was distressed to see a letter from a notable lady talking of the "horrifying inhumanity" of the Government's decision. There have been worse expressions.
However, I am not approaching the subject tonight in that spirit of bitterness. I know that the Secretary of State is not an inhuman monster. I know that he shares our deep concern for the problems of disabled people. I know that he wants to see the very best done for them that he can manage within available resources.
Having said that, I doubt whether the Secretary of State would today wish to repeat the judgment that he gave of his own statement when he said:
I do not think that I have ever made a statement which has been so warmly welcomed."—[Official Report, 23rd July, 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2240.]
When one re-reads his statement, one realises that the Secretary of State's unpalatable message about the trike was


served up with a fairly generous coating of sugar, or, as the Whitehall mandarins put it in their briefs to Ministers, it was an announcement which required careful presentation.
But all the sugar in the world cannot disguise the harsh facts which can now be seen to flow from that announcement. The first is that the newly disabled, and the young disabled reaching 16 years of age after 23rd July last year, who could have looked forward to getting a trike and thus becoming mobile are now being grounded in large numbers. The second fact is that by the end of the five-year transitional period for the phase-out, without a change of policy, thousands of existing trike owners see themselves facing the same fate.
That is the core of the debate today. That is what it is about. The withdrawal of the trike is already leaving thousands of disabled people who would have had wheels to help their mobility without them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) tabled a Question, which was answered on 21st March by the Minister responsible for the disabled. He estimated that in a full year, perhaps 3,500 people who would have had trikes under the old dispensation are not now getting them.
A cash allowance of £5 a week, tax able for those within the tax net, is not an adequate substitute. It does not allow a person enough money to run, let alone to buy, a vehicle of his own. Nor is there on the market any adequate substitute for the trike yet available in a way which can be readily bought.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: As an ex-Treasury Minister, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we spend more on mobility, or less?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has a long and honourable record in: these matters. If he will wait, he will see that I shall come to his question.
I do not think that a policy which has the result of grounding people and of causing grave anxiety for the future is viable. The purpose of this debate is to seek to persuade the Secretary of State that he must think again—

Mr. Carter-Jones: And spend more.

Mr. Jenkin: Not at all. If the hon. Member for Eccles will wait, I shall come to that. I believe that the policy of the Secretary of State has taken a wrong turning and that he should retrace his steps, at any rate, temporarily.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: If I may be allowed to develop my argument, I shall be glad to give way afterwards.
I want to make two matters clear about the approach which the Opposition take to the matter. First, we supported and continue to support the introduction of the mobility allowance. This is extending help to many thousands of the more severely disabled people who previously got no help at all—many of them disabled passengers. Its introduction was an important step forward, and nothing that I say today should be taken as seeking to go back on that decision.
Secondly, as I said in response to the statement by the Secretary of State on 23rd July, it is right in the longer term that, for the great majority of the disabled, cash rather than hardware is the better form of mobility help. Again, in what follows I do not intend to depart from that. Cash is better because it allows or ought to allow a greater flexibility and a wider measure of individual choice.
People who are disabled face an infinite range of problems in their daily lives. As the Minister responsible for the disabled himself said in an interesting interview reported in Social Work Today,
Disabled people are not standard people. You can't impose one system on them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Ovenden: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I have only just started my speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give way to him.
I believe that we have to move towards a policy of basing provision on the nature and on the degree of disability and on the social needs of individual disabled people and that cash is likely to be a more appropriate form of help as we go in that direction. Such arrangements al-


ready exist for the war disabled and the industrial disabled.
I want to see us moving in the direction of asking not "How did you become disabled?" but "How disabled are you and what are your needs?". Moreover, I believe that most disabled people are better able to assess their own needs and make their own decisions than perhaps we imagine. Cash provision is the proper way to deal with this, too.
So the dispute between the two sides of the House is not on principles. It is on methods and on timing.

Mr. Ovenden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to give freedom of choice to the disabled involves a very much larger expenditure than has taken place in the past? Will he say what contribution he made, as Financial Secretary in the last Government, towards increasing the provision for mobility?

Mr. Jenkin: We made a number of very notable improvements for the care of the disabled, including the attendance allowance and the £100 grant for cars.
I am trying to approach this subject in as non-partisan a spirit as I can. There is a very widespread feeling outside this House that the needs of the disabled should not become a political shuttle cock. I am airing a problem which has caused very grave anxiety outside, and I believe that it is not only the right but the duty of the Opposition to do that.

The Secretary of State for Social Ser vices (Mr. David Ennals): Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he does not intend to divide the House at the end of this debate?

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the Secretary of State also will contain himself. Before I conclude my remarks, I shall indicate to my right hon. and hon. Friends how I suggest we should approach this debate.
As I say, this is a matter not of principle but of methods and of timing. But methods and timing can, for individuals, have exceedingly serious implications.
I can understand the determination of the Department to get out of the hardware business as swiftly as possible. I am sure that it has found it difficult and uncomfortable to handle. But it must not

be allowed to do so at the expense of depriving large groups of the disabled of proper mobility.
The General Secretary of the Central Council for the Disabled, Mr. George Wilson, has given me permission to quote from an article which he has written and which is due to be published shortly. It makes this point very well. Mr. Wilson writes:
Ministers cannot claim that true progress is achieved merely by quoting that vast amounts of money are being spent if for some there is a deterioration of service.
So, against that background, I turn to the specific problem facing the Government. How can they make sure that, in the process of transition, service to some does not deteriorate?
In an ideal world, no doubt the mobility allowance would be increased to a level which would allow the disabled driver or passenger who needs a vehicle to buy and operate one of his choice. At the same time, there should be a range of suitable vehicles on the market on which that money could be spent. There is no dispute between us that that money does not exist and that it is unlikely to exist in the sums necessary for some years to come.
It has been predicted in the Press that the Secretary of State will take this occasion to announce an increase of the mobility allowance from £5 of £7 a week, presumably operating from next November. That will be welcome, as far as it goes. But I am sure that even he will not seek to pretend that that increase will bridge the gap between the cash provision being made and the cost to the individual of providing a vehicle.
Of course, we have to bear in mind that in the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased vehicle excise duty and put 5p on a gallon of petrol. The disabled tell me that these increases are likely to add about £1 a week to the cost of their motoring. The remaining £1, therefore, represents an increase of 20 per cent. at a time when inflation, on the basis of figures for the last three months, is running at 19·9 per cent. a year. Thus it barely keeps pace with inflation, and for disabled people paying tax at the basic rate there will be no real improvement relative to the cost of driving.
I am sure that it is not disputed that there is no suitable alternative vehicle available, but it is not clear how hard the Government are looking for one. They use a standard phrase when they are asked about finding a suitable vehicle. For example, the Minister responsible for the disabled said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James):
as phasing out proceeds and the pattern of need becomes clearer, we shall be looking"—
I emphasise the word "shall"—
on home and world markets to help drivers who will still need a specialised vehicle when their tricycles can no longer be replaced.
Later in that reply, the Minister said;
My Department and the Department of Transport are jointly considering what further research is desirable in order to identify, among the possible lines of development, those which have the best prospects of effectively meeting the needs of disabled people."—[Official Report, 8th March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 466.]
It is all in the future.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is making a rather unfair attack, because the Government are looking and so are some hon. Members. For example, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I are both searching. It is unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to make such an accusation. I admit that we have not yet found a suitable vehicle, but we are looking.

Mr. Jenkin: My point is that Ministers have been extremely careful in correspondence and parliamentary answers not to say that. They say that they will be looking. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State nodding his assent.
Some manufacturers are already responding to the need. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) has met representatives of the Ford Motor Company and may be able to tell us more about these meetings when he winds up the debate for the Opposition.
So, a suitable replacement vehicle does not exist and the mobility allowance is not enough to buy a vehicle. The question, therefore, is whether it is right to phase out the trike now.
The Secretary of State has used a number of arguments to justify his decision. The first is that the disabled prefer

the mobility allowance, even at its present level. I question the validity of that argument, because until July all disabled people who wanted a trike and were eligible for a trike got a trike. They were not in the market for mobility allowance. Those offered the allowance have taken it up, but in most cases they were either not eligible for trikes or had refused one, and it is hardly surprising that they should opt for the allowance.
Linked with this argument is the case based on the questionnaire circulated to trike drivers asking whether they would be interested in claiming mobility allowance in due course. If trikes are being phased out and not being replaced, that is a non-question. It is inconceivable that people would turn down a mobility allowance. When my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) pressed this point on the Minister responsible for the disabled at Question Time on 8th March the hon. Gentleman wisely recognised it and said that there was a need for a more detailed questionnaire. The Secretary of State should not place any reliance on that evidence.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no substitute for a vehicle—whether it is a trike or anything else—for most people and that if the Government delay the replacement in trikes they will be faced with an enormous cost when they eventually replace the trike with another vehicle?

Mr. Jenkin: That is what the argument is all about—until some provision is available, what should be done about the trike?

Mrs. Millie Miller: When the Minister made his announcement about the phasing out of the trike and the widening of the mobility allowance, the right hon. Gentleman was the first to say "Thank goodness for cash instead of hardware". He did not question then how the people with trikes and those needing them would suffer.

Mr. Jenkin: I can only imagine that the hon. Lady's memory has played her false. I am not backing away from the argument in the long run cash is better than hardware, but if she reads the four specific questions that I put to the Minister that time—I did not put them


in a bellicose way, but in a straight forward fashion—she will see that I asked all the relevant questions, including whether the allowance was enough and whether it was an adequate alternative to the trike and what he was doing about a replacement vehicle. The hon. Lady's accusation does not stand.
The question of cost can be dealt with briefly. Ministers have bent over backwards to make clear to the whole world of the disabled that phasing out the trike had nothing to do with cost.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was approaching the debate in a non-partisan way? Will he confirm that he will spell out the exact cost of the proposals that he is making to the House?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman understood me correctly. I am trying to approach a highly contentious issue in as non-partisan a way as I can, but it is our duty as an Opposition, if we think that the Government have made a mistake, to say so and to express our view in the Lobby if we do not get satisfaction.
In his letter to the disabled, the Secretary of State said:
The decision to stop making new tricycles was not taken lightly. And it was certainly not taken to save money".
The figures in the report of the Central Council for the Disabled show that the cost to the Department of providing trikes, if the mobility allowance is increased to £7 a week as we expect, is of the same order of magnitude, and since no one who opts to keep the trike will get the allowance, there is no argument on cost. It is an argument on whether phasing out should start now, before an alternative is available for the disabled, or whether it should be delayed with the phasing out taking much longer.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to ask.

Mr. George Cunningham: Of course the right hon. Gentleman knows my question in advance. If the Opposition had tabled a motion saying that the phasing out should be stopped and that we should

go back to the position we were in some months ago, it is almost certain that such a motion would have been passed by the House tonight. Although it would have been an ineffective motion in a sense, it would have been effective politically, because no Government could possibly ignore it. Why did not the Opposition do the job that only they can do and put down a motion to attract the support of a majority of hon. Members, which would have had practical consequences in the direction for which the right hon. Gentleman is pleading?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. There are a large number of hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate—

Mr. George Cunningham: This is a vital point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am objecting not to the intervention but to its length.

Mr. Jenkin: Very briefly in reply to that intervention, we should not have been able to vote on our motion. Until the House accepts the new advice of the Procedure Committee this cannot be done. The hon. Member has touching faith in his right hon. Friends if he thinks they would not have tabled an amendment. I hope that he will support us in amending the rules of the House, because that is what is needed to achieve his objective.
I come to the argument about EEC standards. The Secretary of State has been less than frank with the House. In his statement on 23rd July he said:
But there is now a decisive new factor. The progress of international standards in this field now makes it most probable that before long the limits of the present design of the tricycle will have been reached. Thus in the longer term the trike cannot form part of our mobility help for disabled people.
Later I asked him:
Will he tell the House whether the Department now regards the trike as safe or not, or is it just that EEC standards are higher than those which his Department is prepared to accept?"—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 223.]
It is notable that the Secretary of State did not answer that question—he avoided it.
On this subject the House is very much indebted to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), because he has established that this is


nothing to do with the EEC at all, despite what has been said about inter national standards, because the proposed EEC regulations specifically exclude three-wheelers. The regulation to which the Government are paying so much regard is British and it goes well beyond anything that is required by the EEC. So what are these international standards on which the Secretary of State appears to place such great weight?
In the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 8th March the Minister responsible for the disabled was pressed very hard on this matter by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He admitted that even in its application to three-wheelers our regulation went beyond the strict terms of the EEC directives. So it is really nothing to do with the EEC directives. The EEC is a red herring which has been drawn across the trail in order to bamboozle people.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (Mr. Alfred Morris): I have made it clear that we are not prepared to accept lower safety standards for disabled people than for other people in this country.

Mr. Jenkin: That is very important and I shall come to it. What I am saying does not mean that there is no argument about safety. The accident record shows that the trike is nine times more likely to be involved in an accident than a car driven by a disabled person. A very large proportion of accidents occur among younger drivers, where the figues compare with those for motor cycles. In part this must be due to youthful exuberance and rashness, but part is due to poor training.
It is very difficult to teach a person to drive in a single-seater. However, I do not think that it would be impossible to improve the standard of training. The Institute of Advanced Motorists in Sheffield has already introduced radio-controlled training, which gives a link between the pupil and the instructor.
The argument is not so much on that, but the fact that the trike does not conform with national standards. That is what the Minister just said in his intervention. I question that argument. I have a copy of a memorandum supplied by the

Association of Approved Repairers. The memorandum says:
One of the major manufacturers of three-wheeled vehicles for invalids, namely AC Cars Ltd., have said that, in their considered opinion, they do not forsee any insurmountable problems in implementing modifications to the current vehicle in order that the National Type Approval Standard is achieved.
Later on it says:
It is worth noting that the NTA Standards automatically 'umbrella' both EEC and ECE international regulations.
This is the really crucial point:
It was only the vehicle phasing out policy which meant that no three-wheeled invalid vehicle would be in production at 1st October 1978 that led the DHSS not to incur further costs, however minimal, in undertaking vehicle modifications to oblige standards which were only mandatory after the cessation of current vehicle production as dictated by the present phasing out policy.
That is a very significant statement. It means the failure to comply with the regulation is a consequence of the phasing out and not that the phasing out is a consequence of the vehicles not meeting the regulation. The argument about standards is therefore palpably false. It is perfectly possible, if that statement is correct, to produce a vehicle that will comply with the standards.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend agree that to the driver of the three-wheeled vehicle it is a question not of the safety of that vehicle but of the life which that person will lead? This utility vehicle, since it was issued first in 1948, has been crucial to the livelihood of disabled people and it is crucial now, irrespective of safety standards.

Mr. Jenkin: I was about to come to the point made by my hon. Friend. None of us disputes that the trike, unless it is carefully driven, is less safe than a four-wheeled vehicle. It is also noisy, uncomfortable and unsociable. But those are not conclusive reasons in the eyes of the trike drivers, who are being deprived of their mobility following the phasing out policy.
Then there is the argument about the Department of Employment "fares to work" scheme. It is difficult to believe that the Government think of this as an alternative. It is a minuscule scheme. Last year only 350 were helped and the total cost was £70,000. The average weekly


benefit was £9·04. I understand that the applicant qualifies under the scheme only if he is provided with special facilities by his employer or by the Employment Services Agency to enable him to undertake ordinary employment. So, before qualifying he must have a job already and, however, a job that requires special facilities to be provided for him.
That scheme offers no help at all to youngsters looking for work. These are the ones who would find the trike most valuable. Also it is no help at all to disabled people who can do ordinary work and do not require special facilities. In addition, the scheme is subject to a strict means test. Therefore, its availability is only very limited and the Government would not be wise to rely on it apart from in the odd exceptional case.
We now come to the scheme for providing vehicles by the Central Council for the Disabled. Yesterday I had sight of a document entitled "Preliminary Notes on an Institution for Commutation of the Mobility Allowance for the Disabled". The document is not yet published and I cannot go into details, but I regard this scheme as ambitious and imaginative. However, it will be very costly and will require substantial new money. It will need a fund operated by a non-profit making friendly society to make loans to the disabled to buy vehicles.
The director of the Central Council for the Disabled, Mr. George Wilson, did, however, say that I could quote the objectives of the institution. They are:

"(a) to accept from disabled persons the assignment under covenant of mobility allowance grants payable by the DHSS and, against the security of such covenants, to advance the appropriate capital sums for immediate use in car purchase;
(b) to act as an intermediary between disabled recipients of the mobility allowance and the manufacturers, in negotiating the supply of vehicles, suitably adapted to the needs of the disabled owners, at concessionary prices."

There have been two meetings between the CCD and the DHSS, the latest 10 days ago, and the Central Council has been asked to prepare a more detailed document. I know that legislation would be necessary to introduce such a scheme and the Secretary of State told me last Wednesday in a Written Answer that he could not say when any conclusions were likely to be reached. This is a scheme

for the future. It will not meet any immediate requirements. I hope, however, that the studies will go forward.
Returning to the trike, I read the column by Adam Raphael on the front page of The Observer last Sunday in which he said:
Mr. David Ennals, the Social Services Secretary, will announce major improvements in aid for disabled drivers on Tuesday in an attempt to avert a Government defeat in the Commons.
We shall listen with great interest to what the Secretary of State has to say. It is clear that even a £7 a week mobility allowance will not meet the case. It is clear that the travel to work scheme will not meet the case—

Hon. Members: What would the Conservatives do?

Mr. Jenkin: I have said what we would do. Present schemes are not able to meet the particular case I am making. The mobility allowance is too low; the travel-to-work scheme is very limited; and the commutation scheme is for the future.
I spelled out at the start of my speech the general approach of the Conservative Party to the problem of mobility, and I think that our differences with the Government are not of principle but of method and timing. I have said that we are not concerned with costs, because the Government have said over and over again that the phasing out of the trike has nothing to do with costs. I explained why that was obviously right. But what we are concerned about are the consequences of the statement of 23rd July, and these were starkly spelled out in a recent statement by the Queen Elizabeth Fund for the Disabled. The quotation I shall give comes from the Daily Telegraph of 18th April. It says:
More than 3,000 handicapped school leavers who could do useful work were being forced into idleness and unnecessarily turned into dependant people by Government policies on mobility for the handicapped.
It continues
'We are desperately concerned for these young people. There is absolutely nothing adequate to get them to work', said Mr. Robin Smith, spokesman for the fund.
It is that which is the unacceptable consequence of what the Secretary of State said, with the added threat that, as the trikes are phased out, the same thing


will happen to thousands of other disabled persons. Unless the right hon. Gentleman announces that he will resume—albeit temporarily and not as a best solution, but as the right solution in the circumstances—the supply of trikes to those who are now being grounded for the want of them, or, alternatively, that he will make other arrangements for these people which will achieve the same objectives, it would be right for the House to express its disquiet in the Division Lobbies. I say that with regret. But with the ways things are turning out, nothing else would adequately reflect the deep anxieties which are felt outside this House on this matter.

4.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): We have been dealing with a subject which inevitably causes concern and passion, and not only among the disabled. But I think that we should be very careful about synthetic concern and synthetic passion, because we have had a bellyful of that this after noon from the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin).
I found the right hon. Gentleman's speech disappointing. He gave no indication of Conservative policies. There was no indication of what sums of money he, if he had the power to control it, would spend. But he said that unless I decided to go back on a policy which he welcomed when I announced it, he would march his troops through the Division Lobby this evening. If that is not playing party politics with the disabled, I want to know what party politics is all about.
The right hon. Gentleman must have decided that perhaps this was a good moment electorally to embarrass the Government. When the Opposition choose their Supply Days they have good reasons for doing so. But if the right hon. Gentleman thinks for one moment that I am going to be on the defensive about the Government's policy on disablement, certainly bearing in mind the record of the Conservatives on this matter, he is wrong.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It may have been a forlorn hope, but nevertheless I did hope that the Secretary of State might feel it right, as I did, to eschew personal attacks and try to deal with this issue with the seriousness and the compassion

which it deserves. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do that.

Mr. Ennals: I will swallow that dose of hypocrisy and proceed with my speech.
I am not on the defensive about the Government's record. The Government have a record of which we should be proud, a record which more than stands comparison with what was achieved by the Conservatives when they had the chance to do something about the plight of the disabled.
We cannot just treat mobility in isolation from the wider area of services and benefits for disabled people, because to take mobility on its own is to make the basic mistake of thinking that those who need mobility help are a quite separate and distinct group among the disabled. They simply are not. Those who benefited from the vehicle scheme were only a small but a very important fraction of the many disabled people with special problems of getting about, and an even smaller fraction of the total number of disabled people. I assumed from the right hon. Gentleman that his main purpose was to spread the jam more thinly, but he did not say who would get less jam if anyone were to get more. That is why we have to look at the whole area of benefits and services for the disabled.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I am not giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) knows full well that if the Minister does not give way he must not persist.

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to deal seriously with the subject and I intend to do precisely that. I want to look at the whole area of benefits and services for the disabled.
When Labour came to power in 1974 two important benefits were already being paid. One was the attendance allowance and the other the invalidity pension. I might ask, as a matter of interesting history, who first introduced these measures into the House of Commons. The answer is that it was a combination of the late Dick Crossman and myself. He was then the Secretary of State and


I the Minister of State with responsibility for the subject—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It was Tory legislation.

Mr. Ennals: It is true that it was Tory legislation, and I give credit to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), because he gave credit to me when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He took, word for word, that part of Dick Crossman's legislation that dealt with the attendance allowance and he put it into his own Bill. I have no reason to criticise that. I am glad that he did it. He took from the ideas already boxed and existing at that time the ideas on the invalidity pension which subsequently, I am glad to say, has been improved.
The incoming Labour Government therefore had to build on these two measures. The attendance allowance has been expanded and all credit must go to both Secretaries of State involved in doing that. The invalidity pension has become an accepted part of what we do for our disabled people. When the Labour Government came in they had to build on that, and in our October manifesto in 1974 we promised three major new cash benefits. These were the invalid care allowance, the new non-contributory benefit to help people outside the National Insurance Scheme, and a mobility allowance. All three of those pledges have been fulfilled.
The invalid care allowance was introduced last July for men and single women who are unable to work because they have to stay home to look after severely disabled relatives who receive the attendance allowance. It was right to do that. That was a tangible official recognition of a group of dedicated and devoted people—mainly ladies—who had given up their lives to look after disabled relatives.
The non-contributory invalidity pension plugged another and far larger gap in the system by covering many people who were unable to benefit from the National Insurance Scheme. There are now about 130,000 people receiving the NCIP, which is paid at the rate of £9·20 a week. The invalid care allowance is at the same rate.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that

the non-contributory invalidity pension for disabled housewives would not be coming into action this autumn had it not been for some Labour Members and Conservative Members who felt that the benefit should go to the disabled housewife as well as to the single man and the disabled man?

Mr. Ennals: I will confirm that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and I, with Members on both sides of the House—certainly with the Opposition Front Bench spokesman and all my colleagues—wanted at the earliest possible moment to see the introduction of the noncontributory invalidity pension for housewives. We should all have liked to see it introduced earlier, and we are all glad that it will be introduced in November. I am afraid that the hon. Lady cannot take credit for a measure introduced entirely by this Government.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am concerned about the interests of Back Benchers. The disabled housewife would not be getting her benefit in November but for the fact that a couple of Back Benchers revolted on that occasion. That should be clearly understood.

Mr. Ennals: I am prepared to give credit all round. I believe that Members on both sides of the House wanted to see the allowance paid at the time that it was paid, and I am glad that it was paid at that time.
I turn now to the mobility allowance, which is the main subject of the debate, although it is not irrelevant to raise these other issues, because the mobility allowance is only one part of what we are doing to help the disabled. This mobility allowance was designed to give mobility help to a far wider range of disabled people than ever before. It was designed to do this without discriminating unfairly between those who can drive and those who cannot drive. That was the most important principle that we introduced.
This fundamental decision to extend the whole field of mobility assistance is one for which this Government are entitled to take credit. The hon. Lady cannot take an atom of credit for it, because it was not introduced when the Conservatives were in power. These are all very crucial points in the debate.
Eventually, the new mobility allowance will help about 100,000 people who previously received no mobility help at all. Not everyone has been brought in straight away. The scheme is being phased in and benefit is now paid to over 43,000 people aged between five and 52 years. Everyone up to pension age will be covered by the end of 1979.
My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Disabled would have liked to see it introduced very much more quickly, but none of us on either side can doubt that there are problems, both administrative and financial. We are carrying out our commitments.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On the point that there is a need to extend the provision when finance allows, will the right hon. Gentleman therefore concede that as soon as finance is available for any change in the schemes, it should be directed towards the extension of the age range as soon as possible?

Mr. Ennals: It would be unwise for me to enter into a commitment. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point into consideration.
We cannot look at one benefit separately from the others. Invalidity pension, attendance allowance and mobility allowance can be, and in some cases are, payable all at the same time to the same person. With maximum entitlement at current rates, the married man with a wife and two children can get as much as £54, and more if he is getting all three benefits. This is not an unlikely situation. In fact, we think that perhaps about 30 per cent. of mobility allowance beneficiaries also get the attendance allowance. When we weigh up the figure of £5, therefore, we have to reckon that a considerable number, about 30 per cent., will also be getting an additional benefit.
It is clear then, that benefits specifically related to mobility are only one element in the whole pattern of Government support for the disabled people—a pattern which owes a great deal to this Government's caring and constructive approach.
There has also been an increase in the provision of personal social services for the disabled under this Government. Expenditure on aids, adaptations, telephones and holidays increased from about

£4 million in 1972–73 to about £11 million in 1975–76, and on meals and the home help services together—of which the disabled and frail elderly are the principal beneficiaries—from about £40 million to £99 million over the same period of time.
We came to office determined to tackle the problems facing disabled people. We said a good deal about disability in our manifesto. We were determined to give them the help they needed to tackle these problems basically for themselves, so that they would not be dependent, as they have so often been, on other people. If our policies were to succeed we knew that there needed to be a firm sense of direction, and that there needed to be someone who could co-ordinate, push and encourage everyone—it involves many Departments—to see that the job was done.
This was why the Prime Minister of the day decided to appoint my hon. Friend as Minister responsible for the Disabled. At that time it was a symbol of our commitment to help the disabled. I would say that it has become much more than a symbol in the days since then. I have here a list of over 100 achievements and advances—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford should not laugh. I have this list of advances in the field of disablement, and most of these are due to the efforts and determination of my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Disabled. By his action and example he has helped, I believe, to change the attitudes of society towards disabled people.
Even the attitude of this House of Commons has changed. It is far easier now for disabled people to come to the House of Commons. There are proper toilet facilities and other things available for them. These exist because of a new attitude towards disabled people. The fact that my very respected hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is able, with his fortitude as a disabled person, to take part in the business of this House owes something also to the new attitude and the new spirit that exists.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have paid my tribute to the Minister responsible for the disabled, but I think that the right hon.


Gentleman is going a little too far now. The "loo" in the Lower Waiting Hall was here long before this Government took office.

Mr. Ennals: That is not so. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—he can ask Mr. Deputy Speaker afterwards—that it followed an Act which was piloted through Parliament by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled. However, I shall not take this further. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to join with me in paying tribute to what has been done.
It is right that we should pay tribute, because what we are talking about is affected more than anything else by the attitude of people in our society towards disablement, and we have seen a change in this respect.
The right hon. Gentleman has sought to appear before us today in a sense as a self-appointed champion of the disabled. I do not think this pose will carry much conviction with those who have worked over many long years with organisations concerned with disabled people as, quite frankly, I have.

Sir George Young: Cheap.

Mr. Ennals: If it is cheap, maybe the hon. Gentleman will tell us the price, for certainly nowhere in his contribution has the right hon. Gentleman said what the price would be and what he would do if he were a Minister.
We can only judge this by what the Conservatives did when they were in power. I agree that they brought in the private car allowance, and gave vehicles and in some cases cars to further categories of people. I give them credit for that. These were useful reforms. But how far were the Tory Government pre pared to back their conscience with hard cash?
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East made clear, when he announced these changes on 21st February 1972, that his aim was to make better use of existing money, but where was he to get the money from in order to do these useful things? The Tories were giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Vehicles issued to people needing them to get to work were to be withdrawn on cessation of employment. That was one little economy. The House will recall that this Government have reversed that policy. Trikes issued under the old scheme are no longer taken away when someone loses a job. I observe that the Opposition Benches are silent at the present time.
The second little economy was one which the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford must, clearly, have forgotten. He has made much of what he regards as the impost on disabled drivers because of the extra cost of petrol. He has his views on this, as I am sure the disabled people have. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his own rôle when he was a junior Minister at the Treasury at which time he was party to a decision to refuse to give new applicants the petrol allowance of £5 paid to tricycle holders? He was the Minister when the decision was taken. He now comes before the House with hypocrisy and humbug and asks me would I kindly not be too political in replying to his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted from Mr. George Wilson, the Director of the Central Council for the Disabled. The Central Council put out a statement yesterday—perhaps it had this debate in mind—in which it said:
Many disabled people have fears for their future mobility and these fears must be calmed.
I must say, in parenthesis, that some of those fears are due to incorrect statements that have been made sometimes for political reasons. That is one reason why I had to write a letter to every individual disabled person to break through some of the misapprehensions and concerns that have been spread.
George Wilson continued:
This can only be achieved by providing mobility for the disabled with a structured scheme, and not making those needs a football.
I want to talk about that. I am glad that that was said and I hope that in future the Opposition will heed those words.
We have introduced a structured scheme for mobility, namely, a mobility allowance. We inherited a policy—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Ennals: This will be the fourth time that I have given way.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I gave way a great many times. Would the Secretary of State accept that, having read that statement, I specifically asked Mr. George Wilson whether he thought it would be right for the Opposition to divide the House if the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the points I have put? Mr. Wilson authorised me to say on the Floor of the House that he thought that it would be right to reflect the anxieties of those outside.

Mr. Ennals: I must accept the right hon. Gentleman's word in that connection. But never before have I known Mr. George Wilson—I have known him for many years and the work he is doing and the work he did long before he joined the Central Council—decide to give advice to one political party or another about how its members should vote in the House. Never before—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I have not given way. Never before have I known George Wilson—who has achieved much in bringing two organisations together into one representative body—tell a political party that—if he said the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to return to the subject of the invalid tricycle. This is a problem we are facing, which the right hon. Gentle man has raised. The trike was already under fire because it was anti-social, and—the right hon. Gentleman used this expression himself—because it was only a single-seater and also because of its safety record.
There was another objection, too, an objection which weighed heavily in the minds of a Government committed to social justice. It was not fair to confine mobility help to those people who were able to drive and to deny help to those who could not—those whose particular disability prevented them from driving, those who were too young, and so on.
The essential criterion for mobility assistance had to be the inability to walk. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought the test should be the extent of disability. The mobility allowance is now

based on the extent of disability, not on the extent of ability to drive. We have this new allowance. In deciding this, we increased enormously the number of disabled people who will receive help. We committed ourselves to a trebling of expenditure on mobility and we introduced a vital element of flexibility into the policy, because people can spend the cash benefit on whatever form of mobility best suits them.
I remain convinced, as I am sure does the right hon. Gentleman, that this policy was right. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us, temporarily, to go back a bit. I do not accept that. Peter Large, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled put it succinctly when he said:
We welcome the Government's move from inflexible hardware into cash, and their acknowledgement of disabled non-drivers
In the statement from the Central Council for the Disabled, Mr. George Wilson said:
The Central Council for the Disabled believes that the mobility allowance is the best way to solve the problems of disabled people and that they can be solved on this basis. A return to the supply of vehicles would be retrograde.
This is very relevant. This touches relevently on the earlier quotation from Mr. George Wilson. I repeat Mr. Wilson's words
A return to the supply of vehicles would be retrograde
That was the statement made by Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Secretary of State has chosen, as I did not, to make a series of sharp, personal attacks and I think that I am entitled to answer them. That was precisely the question I put to Mr. Wilson this morning, having read his statement. I said to him that surely he agreed that the trike should be reprieved so that those people were not grounded. He made it abundantly clear that that was exactly what he was asking for and that that was what was agreed at the meeting earlier this year. That is what the disabled want and that is what I am asking for. There is no question of extra cost because the trikes will be provided instead of the mobility allowance.

Mr. Ovenden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you whether this is a debate or a dialogue?


May I draw your attention to the fact that this debate will last for only three hours and 12 minutes? The debate has proceeded for two minutes short of one hour and has been monopolised by the two Front Bench spokesmen. Could you use your influence to protect Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wish that I could use some influence and I wish that I had the power sometimes to ensure a certain outcome of the deliberations. However, this is a debate which is being conducted in what I regard as comparatively normal circumstances.

Mr. Ennals: I take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend. I have been over-generous in giving way and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was overgenerous, too.
There are those who think that we should have phased out the trike and replaced it with some other, completely new specialised vehicle, supplied to all those who wanted it. This was argued by many hon. Members. No doubt it would have been a superior vehicle in many ways. It would have needed to be taller than a modern car to accommodate people who cannot bend. It would have needed to be a four-wheeler for stability. It would also have needed a proper degree of crash protection. And, of course, it would have been a much more expensive vehicle.
All this could be done in time and at a price far, far higher than we paid for the trike. Alternatively, we could have provided an adapted production car for the majority who could have driven one. In any case, we would have had to face the fact that such a vehicle scheme would have been extremely costly and it could have been afforded only if we continued to refuse mobility help for those unable to drive—a refusal which could not be justified.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no difference in cost. Of course there is a difference in cost between receiving a trike and receiving a mobility allowance. On average, I suppose, the trike owner receives about £10, and that is roughly the weekly cost of keeping a trike on the road. The mobility allowance at present is not as much as that.
I come now to the level of mobility allowance. The proposal the right hon. Gentleman made was in fact a demand for additional expenditure. We saw no need to withdraw the trike from existing holders just because of the accident record, which is not simply a matter of the trike's handling characteristics. We have had some problems involving the accident record of trikes and this was obviously one of the most powerful reasons why we decided to phase it out.
When the Government made their decision there had been powerful pressure over many months, for safety reasons, to phase out the trike. We decided that we saw no reason for withdrawing the trike from existing holders. The accident record does not rely only on the trike's handling characteristics. The experience and judgment of the driver are important factors. While the risks are greater for new drivers, many existing trike drivers, with their confidence and experience, will want to keep their trikes for as long as possible.
I gave them some good news. Last July I assured those existing users who wanted to keep their trikes that they would be able to do so for about five years, until parts and replacement vehicles were no longer available. It now looks as if we shall be able to keep the trikes going a little longer—first, because we have been looking at the possible effects of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which allows trike holders to opt for mobility allowance without any age restriction and without a medical examination. The more people who take advantage of this option, the longer we shall be able to provide tricycles for those who still want them. Second, there is the life-span of the latest three-wheelers. In place of the old two-stroke engine and manual transmission the newer models have a more powerful engine and automatic transmission. The probability is that these Model 70s will last longer than earlier types.
My best estimate is that we should be able to maintain the supply of trikes for those who want to keep them till 1982 and perhaps 1983. Many of the trikes then in use will, of course, last for years beyond that. It may be that many people who drive trikes will be able to go on


using them until the later part of the 1980s.
I know that this prospect will bring welcome reassurance to many disabled drivers. I repeat that the Government's aim will be to ensure that no one who is now mobile is immobilised by the phasing out. That was the assurance that I gave in the letter I sent out last December to all drivers of tricycles issued under the old scheme, and I stand by it.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was asking where we stood on the question of alternative vehicles. We recognise that some people will continue to need specialised vehicles and we shall look and are looking now at specialised vehicles. But we cannot decide at this stage. It would be unwise to take a decision so many years in advance. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled and I have visited a number of projects for specialised vehicles and adaptation of production cars, as well as setting in hand, with the Department of Transport, a research study of adaptation.

Mr. Ashley: I agree with a very great deal of what my right hon. Friend has said and I appreciate that some people will need a specialised vehicle, but what do the Government propose to do about disabled people who find that their trikes are worn out and there is no replacement and who cannot afford to buy a vehicle? What will they do in the interim period?

Mr. Ennals: It is precisely for that group that my hon. Friend and I are doing our work. We shall be entering into much more work as we come to the end of the interim period. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is right in saying that some people will still need specialised vehicles. We want to ensure that a specialised vehicle is available at that time. I shall stand by—and my hon. Friend will ensure that I stand by—the commitment that we shall not allow people who need a vehicle to find themselves immobilised because we have not been able to provide one. The existing trike holders' interests are being carefully protected by the Government, and it is only right that we should do so. Of course there are problems in a

transition, and this is a major transition from hardware to cash.
The first thing to be said here is that there can be no going back on the essential principle of the new system. People often say that one should postpone something for another year, two years or three years, but we cannot go back on the main decision that we have taken.
Here we have to face the fact that mobility allowance is not as high as we would like it to be. In the present economic climate, there are limits to what we can afford and it would be wrong, as I have said, to single out drivers for some special higher level of benefit. But the Government are not inflexible in dealing with the practical problems facing individual disabled people. The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and his colleagues in the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled came to see me about some of their immediate problems. The Minister with responsibility for the disabled and I are engaged now in detailed discussions with the Central Council for the Disabled. The Central Council has put it to me that, with some financial assistance from the Government, it would be able to raise additional interest free capital. This, in turn, could be made available as interest-free loans to help disabled people to buy their own vehicles. Those who borrowed this money would repay it over a period out of their mobility allowance. Details are still being worked out, and there are many problems: not least, that such a scheme could help only a limited number of the disabled people who might wish to make use of it. The British Association for Disablement and Rehabilitation—the successor body to the Central Council for the Disabled, in which it has been merged with the British Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled—made clear that it would need to take very careful account of the priorities of disabled people themselves if such a scheme were to be effective and fair. There is no commitment to such a scheme, but my Department is co-operating with the Association in working out the possibilities in further detail to see what can be done. Certainly there is good will on both sides. I hope that we can achieve some success.
But the main Government strategy for helping disabled people lies in improving benefits. As the House knows,


mobility allowances is subject to annual review but is not automatically uprated each year. There have been rumours—to which the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford referred—that the increase would be to £7. I am glad to be able to confirm this figure. From November mobility allowance will be paid at the rate of £7 a week and this rise of £2 in cash terms should mean a substantial rise in real terms. I believe that this will be welcomed by disabled people throughout the country. It is giving a 40 per cent. increase on the figure that they are receiving.
Mobility allowance has meant a great deal to a great many people. It has been a major element in this Government's strategy to improve the lot of the disabled. In mobility, as in other areas of policy for the disabled, this Government have achieved more than any other Government in the history of this country.

Mr. David Weitzman: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I shall not give way. I have said that I would not give way even to my hon. Friends because of the lack of time.
These achievements are all the more impressive for having been carried through in spite of the economic difficulties facing the nation, and the increase in mobility allowance which I have announced tonight is the latest advance for the disabled under this Labour Government.
I return to what was said by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. I hope that he will think again before he leads his right hon. and hon. Friends into the Division Lobby on an issue where he knows that in principle there is no disagreement between us. If he takes his party through the Division Lobby tonight I believe it will be clear that he is playing party politics on this issue. He should do no such thing.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: When I last spoke on this subject, at a time when most hon. Members had sensibly gone to bed, I took eight minutes. I hope to improve on that today as I realise from several wise interventions from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you prefer brevity to prolixity.
I was profoundly depressed by the tone of the greater part of the Secretary of State's speech, a tone wholly different from that which we expect from the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled when he comes to reply. Moreover, I believe that it was a tone which the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he goes to bed tonight, will prefer to forget, as we shall, too.
The Under-Secretary of State, the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled, has been extremely helpful to me recently in answers to a number of Questions which I put to him. Some of them—for example, about the impact of the mobility allowance—have given me a great deal of encouragement. Others, about the prospects for the present drivers of Invacars and those who will not qualify under the new scheme as it stands at present, have left me and many others with a profound sense of disquiet; a disquiet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) made clear, shared by hundreds of severely disabled men and women.
Much as I was relieved to hear the Secretary of State say today that the Invacar will not be phased out until later, possibly not until the end of the 1980s, the gnawing anxiety still remains, whatever the date: what happens after that? We are quite certain, and disabled people are quite certain, in spite of the increase in the mobility allowance which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced, that cash alone is not the present answer to what I have on an earlier occasion called the need for spontaneous mobility. However disabled they may be, the disabled are most anxious to do as many normal things as they possibly can.
By "spontaneous mobility" I have meant the mobility to go out on the spur of the moment, to post a letter or go to the pub and be sure of getting home later. That is a right which most of us in this place take completely for granted. But for the severely disabled the mobility allowance, however generous, is no substitute for an Invacar or other vehicle, and this, I fear, would be true even if the mobility allowance were multiplied several times, certainly far in excess of the figure to which the Minister has raised it now.
For these people, therefore, deep anxiety will remain unless the Minister is able to give the undertaking which he has not so far been willing to give, namely, that the vehicle to which they have been entitled, or to which they thought they would be entitled, will not be removed until an adequate alternative is found. There may well be better alternatives. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has shown that. It may, for instance, be possible to devise a scheme for commuting the allowance to enable disabled people to buy and run an alternative vehicle suited to their own disability, and there may be other possibilities besides that. But they want the assurance that a real alternative will be found by the time the Invacar is phased out.
Until one or more of those possibilities is translated into reality, the sentence of immobility, which, I imagine, is of little more comfort than a sentence of death, will continue to hang over hundreds of disabled people. I beg the Minister, therefore, to give a clear undertaking when he replies that until a suitable alternative exists, both the present users and those who would have qualified if the old scheme had continued can look forward to an unclouded future of continued mobility which will be possible for them only if their right to a suitable vehicle, which they have, or had under the old scheme, is maintained.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The speech by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) was very moving, first because he spoke from direct personal experience, for which there can be no substitute, and, second, because he articulated an anxiety in the minds of many thousands of disabled people. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled will be sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman's plea, and I shall return to it in a moment, if I may.
I begin by referring to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his comments about the context of this debate. He was right to criticise the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) for trying to focus too narrowly upon one

aspect of the problems of the disabled to the total exclusion of what the Government have done. I suppose that it is fair game in politics for an Opposition to seek to pinpoint one area of concern in debate, as the right hon. Gentleman did. After all, this is what debate is supposed to be about. Nevertheless, I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to object to the way in which the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford refused to acknowledge what this Government have done for the disabled.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ashley: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, for the truth is that he labours under a disability himself, not a personal disability but a political disability, since no matter how idealistic he may be in debates of this kind—I do not for a moment doubt that he is—he is disabled by reason of the experience and record of his own party. I shall not enlarge upon that because I do not want to make this a party-political debate, but, as I say, my right hon. Friend was right to point out the context in which we should be discussing this problem.
I hope to be able to take up some of the suggestions put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and to advance some of them myself for special consideration by the Secretary of State. I shall, if I may, offer some constructive suggestions, and I feel that I am entitled to do so partly because I am not a member of the Government and partly because I am not burdened by the record of the right hon. Gentleman and his party. I hope that the suggestions which I shall make will be taken seriously by my right hon. Friend and the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled.
However, before we come to analyse the problem and offer suggestions, we shall pay tribute to the Secretary of State for increasing the mobility allowance from £5 to £7. One cannot just dismiss that and say that it is of no consequence. We should pay tribute to the Secretary of State for it. Admittedly, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford could not do that because the announcement had not been made at


that stage, but I wish at once to take the opportunity of assuring my right hon. Friend that it would be churlish of hon. Members on either side not to thank him for this advance, especially at a time of grave economic crisis when many Opposition Members, though not necessarily the right hon. Gentleman himself, are demanding massive cuts in public expenditure. There are no scroungers among disabled people. Thank goodness, this Government have taken the action outlined by the Secretary of State this afternoon.
Before we can analyse the situation and offer suggestions for the future, as I shall try to do in what I hope will be a brief speech, we must compare the present situation with the past. The old policy was in itself divisive and discriminatory. The exclusion of disabled passengers, who so often were far more disabled than were disabled drivers, and refusing to give them help of any kind was outrageous, and the new policy for a mobility allowance is for this reason alone a major advance. I commend the Secretary of State and the Minister on precisely that policy of extending mobility help to thousands of neglected people. It really was a great achievement.
We come, then, to the nub of the problem. It is precisely because this Government have now sought to help many more disabled people that the problems have arisen. If the Government had settled expenditure as they could have done, or as they will do when all the applicants have been accepted, according to the number of people in receipt of the trike hitherto, the response would have been garlands and roses and sugar all around. They would have been warmly congratulated. But the truth is that the Government are the victim of their own generosity, because they have tried to help many more disabled people than were being helped by the policy for the disabled before they came into office. Thereby hangs the problem with which we are faced. It is because the present Government have assisted so many people that they have received a raspberry instead of a garland. That is regrettable.
However, if I may be constructive, the first step is this. After recognising the achievements of the present Govern-

ment, we have to identify the problems of disabled people in relation to the Labour Government's ultimate objectives. Those objectives must be adequate—indeed, generous—help to all disabled people requiring mobility, irrespective of whether or not they can drive. That must remain the major objective. However, what I want to suggest is that every disabled person, under this policy, should have either a car or the means to buy a car, as the ultimate of this policy.
I am hoping that the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled will be able to give an assurance, when he replies to the debate, that that really is the objective of the present Government. But of course, is cannot be achieved overnight. There must necessarily be a transitional period. It is the problem of the transitional period upon which we ought to focus tonight.
Therefore, what I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend is as follows. First of all, a start should be made by giving to some categories of people a special allowance by way of a fund allocated by the Government. This fund would be supplementary to the mobility allowance. It would not be a substitute for it. I stand four square behind the Government's existing policies. I want to suggest that this fund should provide interest-free loans to enable the recipients to buy their own cars, and that some consideration should be given to making those cars cheaper, by alleviation of value added tax or other means.
It is the responsibility of not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled. It is primarily the responsibility of the Treasury. It is the Treasury people who must start changing their minds and their attitudes. Anyone who knows the Secretary of State or the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled will know that they have been fighting very hard on behalf of disabled people, so I am making my appeal not to them but to the Government, to consider introducing a new special fund as a supplement to the mobility allowance.
If that fund is agreed by the Treasury—that is, the Government—it can build on the work of the Central Council for the Disabled, which has been mentioned by the Secretary of State today. Such an ambitious scheme must necessarily be


phased in. It would be irresponsible to assume that it could be done overnight. It could not be done overnight. In the language of Socialism and the language of priorities, if we are to be realistic we have to categorise our own priorities, so we cannot be dishonest and claim that panaceas are available, as some people are suggesting. However, it would be equally dishonest to pretend that the present policy solves the problem.
What are the categories? Who are the priorities? First of all, there are those who depend upon mobility for their jobs. Secondly, there are those women who have disabled children. Thirdly, there are those who have become newly disabled, people entering into the category for the first time. If the Treasury agree to the suggestion, I hope that the Secretary of State will begin to phase those groups into the scheme so that special consideration can be given to them. Therefore, what I suggest is that as the economic situation improves, the Government should consider this proposal.
I pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled for their work. The work done for disabled people by the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled must be unequalled in any country in the world. He really has been a pioneer, and no one in the House fully recognises the value of the work that he has done. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), he engineered this scheme, and now that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pushing through the mobility allowance, they deserve great tribute.
I am hoping that my suggestion will be accepted and that we shall thereby move into a new era of providing for those people who would suffer grave disability by virtue of having their trike phased out. I hope that the trike will not be phased out until the scheme that I have outlined is phased in, so that the one is concommitant with the other, and as the one comes in, so the other goes out. But the one should be dependent upon the other. I hope that the Government will see their way clear to accepting these proposals.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I have listened with interest, as one always does in a debate of this kind, to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I certainly hope that the Government will find it possible to meet his please and his constructive suggestion.
However, if we continue to talk about the trike, the phasing out of the trike and so on—I shall comment on that matter shortly—all that we are doing is talking about people who are already in receipt of hardware in order to make them mobile. Surely the real issue on this point is whether the mobility allowance makes people mobile. As I understand the Government's policy, it is that the mobility allowance will, in time—be it 1982 or 1983, or 1993—replace the issue of all hardware by the Government. If that is the policy, the test in terms of the mobility of the disabled must surely, therefore, be whether the mobility allowance is making more people mobile than were mobile before it was introduced. If it is not doing so, it must be deemed to be a failure, or at any rate, the alternative to that is to say that it is not yet sufficient.
That is why I suspect that we have the wrong Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench this afternoon. They are not the wrong Ministers in the sense that we do not respect their point of view, and they are responsible for the Department, but they are the wrong Ministers in the sense that they can do only that which they can get past the Treasury. I suspect, therefore, that the person we ought to have on the Government Front Bench this afternoon to answer the debate is a representative of the Treasury, to explain, for example, why the Treasury cannot afford more, and so on, with all the long diatribe.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South thought that the major disability of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) was the fact that he was a Tory. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's major disability in this debate is that he is an ex-Treasury Minister. My suspicion is that that is far more of a liability for him as a Shadow Minister for social services than merely the fact that he is a Tory—though


I have always viewed with a little distrust the sincerity of Conservatives in relation to social work and social services. Certainly that is why I should find it difficult to go into a Lobby with Conservatives on the issue of mobility allowances, social services and things of that kind. It is not one of the areas in which I have had any great respect for their sincerity over the years.
The Minister has announced this afternoon—I compliment the Government in this respect—an increase in the mobility allowance from £5 to £7. Every Member will be delighted about that but the key point is that the allowance is tax able. Notwithstanding the increase that has been announced today, the allowance is still inadequate. I hope that the present occupants of the Government Front Bench will continue to press the Treasury for more money for mobility allowances. Until we reach the stage when the mobility allowance makes people mobile the allowance will be inadequate.
Let us examine the situation in more detail. The allowance is to be £7 a week, but let us not forget that it is subject to tax. I am not saying that an adequate allowance should not be subject to tax. I am saying that the first number of pounds of the mobility allowance should be non-taxable and that taxation should apply only when the allowance reaches an adequate level. I do not want to become emotional, but to apply taxation to the allowance, which now stands at £5 a week, is like taxing a person's legs. After all, that is what the allowance is all about—namely, to make people mobile.
The allowance is to allow people to work who could not work unless they had some help in reaching their place of work. It is to allow people socially to integrate who normally could not do so unless they received an allowance to make them mobile. That is what mobility allowances are all about.
If we are obliged to depress the level of the mobility allowance because of economic circumstances £7 is an advance. I give credit to the Government for the advance, but I maintain that the allowance is still depressed too far. If a proportion of the allowance were tax free—possibly even the increase announced this afternoon—that would be a step forward. If we tax the £7 at 35 per cent.,

or 33 per cent. if we get the social contract or whatever it is, we finish with less than £5 a week. That is assuming that the whole of it is taxable and that the recipient is earning at a level that means that he pays tax. If he is not, he is earning at a low level and, therefore, needs the money anyway.
I am arguing that the allowance, be it less than £5 if it is taxable or £7 if the person is not liable for tax, is not sufficient to make a person mobile. How much petrol can be bought for seven quid? It will buy between seven gallons and 10 gallons. How far will that take the person receiving the allowance? After he has paid for the petrol there is the tax to find and the money to maintain the car. Anyone who has had garage bills recently will know about the cost of maintaining cars.
In addition to those costs we are trying to devise a scheme whereby we can make loans available to enable the purchasing of cars. However, if a person takes a loan he loses some of the mobility allowance. In those circumstances he will receive even less of his mobility allowance to spend on items such as petrol, maintenance and road tax.
My view is that it is not unreasonable that a person should provide his own petrol so as to be mobile. Surely that is a reasonable argument. However, I doubt whether £5 or £7 a week, taxable or untaxable, is sufficient to provide capital to purchase a car, to tax it and repair it. If the allowance cannot do all those things it fails to make a person mobile, unless to achieve mobility the recipient is prepared to eat into some other portion of his income—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) say "That is right"?

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: No. I was merely commenting that throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman has commented only in respect of those who can drive. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned those who cannot drive and the ways in which they can be made mobile.

Mr. Smith: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman assists me to make my point. Has he ever thought of trying to hire a taxi? The cost of taking a taxi from Euston to the House is 85p. Clearly the allowance will not provide for many


taxi journeys. It is not a long way from Euston to this place. I pay 75p but that is because taxi drivers like me—or perhaps it is because I do not take up as much room as others in the taxi. I am not sure about that, but if a person is unable to drive and is reliant on some other form of transportation—it must be conceded that £5 is better than "nowt" and £7 better than £5—we must continue from both sides of the Chamber to press the Treasury to provide more until we reach an adequate allowance.
I am using the debate to demonstrate that the present allowance is inadequate. I seek to support the Department's Ministers in their arguments with the Treasury. There is support from both sides of the Chamber for the argument that the allowance is not yet high enough. It is not my object to criticise the Government. I see no point in criticising them. We have made considerable steps forward. It is not my objective to support the Opposition. My objective is to give support to the DHSS Ministers in their arguments with the Treasury. That is the way in which I have tried to direct my remarks.
I hope that the message from this debate will be that for a mobility allowance to be effective it must make people mobile, and that until it reaches that level hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be satisfied and will continue to press Ministers, and through them the Treasury, for greater help for the disabled.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) immediately. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman later.
On behalf of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and myself, I make a plea that consideration be given to the problems of the blind, who obviously cannot drive and have a problem of orientation. If they have to move distances, they are sometimes faced with the problem of double fares. At the out set I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to consider the position of the blind and their mobility needs. I think that their position has sometimes been overlooked.
I must make a plea for the three-wheeled vehicle although I do not like it. I am now a grandfather. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Give me a chance; I might be a great-grandfather. I might survive. I remember my daughters wanting bicycles and there were great arguments in our household about whether they should have them. My daughters won. My grandchild, who is now five, has his first bike. I wake up at night sweating in case he has an accident.
The hon. Member for Rochdale, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and I are involved in a campaign involving the three-wheeled vehicle. There are others present in the Chamber who are similarly concerned. We do not like the vehicle but we believe that those who want it and those who have opted for it there are those who say "Let us control our own lives, let us control our destinies"—must be allowed to have that choice and that the vehicle must be allowed to remain.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), the hon. Member for Wallasey and I visited the Queen Elizabeth Foundation. We there met disabled drivers, and they made their case forcibly. They said that they would rather take a chance with the trike than be put away. The first part of my argument is, reluctantly, to beg my right hon. Friend to allow the three-wheeled vehicle to continue and to allow disabled drivers the choice.
There are many people in the disabled sector who say "For God's sake do not treat us as children. Let us decide" I wish to push the frontier forward.
I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) permission to tug my coat after I have been speaking for 10 minutes. I must tell those on the Front Benches that I think that Back Benchers have as much to contribute to the debate as anyone has. We have been denied a substantial amount of our time. If I speak for more than 10 minutes I shall feel my coat being tugged and I shall sit down within 30 seconds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall ask him to resume his seat after 10 minutes.

Mr. Carter-Jones: That is an extremely good suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I support the hon. Member for Rochdale in saying that the Treasury must put in a massive sum to help the commutation scheme. The scheme should apply only to those in receipt of mobility allowance, and it should on very favourable terms. We should consider remission of VAT. If this massive help is given, we may shortly know the size of the residual problem, because substantial numbers of people may well want to obtain hardware of their own accord. I do not want to see them being forced to do so. I should like them to be warned of the consequences of taking on the responsibility of owning a vehicle, but, with that warning, I should like my right hon. and hon. Friend to persuade the Treasury to give substantial sums to assist the scheme to get off the ground, because that gives choice. Why should the disabled be denied choice? What is peculiar about them? They are consumers, buyers, and should have the same rights as we have to exercise choice. I ask my right hon. Friend to provide that element of choice.
I proceed on a happier note. This morning I went to a meeting concerned with technology. The happy thing to come out of it, but unfortunately the only happy thing, is that there is a distinct chance that wheelchair mobility along pavements is around the corner. This will mean that people will be able to shop in their locality and belong to their communities. However, this mobility is limited. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House know full well, because they have been with me, that we have been looking for alternative vehicles. We cannot be too sanguine. There are no real alternatives yet. What we have seen have been frightfully expensive and not within the means of disabled people.
It is no good talking in terms of 1978 for a utility vehicle for the disabled. Forgive me for saying this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is too bloody late. We should be thinking of having the prototype now, because there is a long time span between having something on the drawing board, having the prototype and having vehicles available.
I am very much in favour of flexibility. I suppose that I am the only hon. Member who has driven with a severely disabled person. Using his mouth, he drove a milk float. I ask my right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to flexibility. I also ask my right hon. Friend to raise the mobility allowance to a realistic level which will give mobility.
My 10 minutes are nearly up. I give great praise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the disabled for the fact that 100,000 people who were so disabled that they were tucked away in their homes and never went out can now go much further than they went before, though I take the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale that they will not get very far.
The disabled can decide for themselves how they spend the money. They may decide to blow it in one fell swoop on a holiday. That is their privilege. I served on the Central Council for the Disabled committee that considered the matter. The one thing that worried the committee was that they might treat the money as further income. Both sides of the House meant it to be for mobility. We have no real control over the matter, but if we put the money in their hands they have a choice. They could decide to go to Euston three times, or go round the corner, or find a friendly cabby. The point is that they can do things that they could not do before.
Those who are immobile must be given more mobility facilities for three main reasons. First, they should be part of the community. Secondly, those who want to work should be helped to get to work, provided the Department of Employment gets the message. Thirdly, those who are born disabled or become disabled in youth should be given the opportunity of education. Disabled people want to pay income tax—and God bless them.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. David Price: The House will not be surprised to know that I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said. I want to beat his record and speak for only five minutes, not 10. I declare my personal interest in these matters. I thank the Government for raising the mobility allowance.
I have no doubt that if we are to do right by our disabled fellow citizens we must put more resources, both public and private, into the provision of better mobility for the disabled. There are things that we can do at the margin without extra cost, but real progress can come only by putting in more resources. It is no use disguising that fact, and we must face up to it.
Therefore, I must make the case for more money to be devoted to mobility for the disabled when there are so many other claims on the public and private purse. The reasons can be put very simply, in the following quotation from the Snowdon Working Party Report:
Unless you can journey by public or private transport to your work, to other people's houses, to public buildings and places or indeed to a holiday resort, your social activity will be limited to institutions or to your own home. Unless you can get inside a theatre, restaurant, house, hotel, pub, club, park, sports ground, office or factory and can do so without trouble, as often as not you might as well stay where you are.
Note those chilling words, Mr. Deputy Speaker:
you might as well stay where you are".
That is why I suggest—and I think that every hon. Member taking part in the debate will make the same plea to the Government—that mobility for the disabled should have such a high priority.
I have welcomed the introduction of the new mobility allowance. Wearing a different hat as a member of various organisations for the disabled to which other hon. Members also belong, I have pressed for this, as they have. We must recognise, and go on recognising, that the mobility allowance gives a new degree of mobility to disabled people. The hon. Members for Eccles and Rochdale (Mr. Smith) rightly pointed out that there were those who previously received nothing, because in the past help for the disabled was limited to those capable of driving—by definition not the most severely disabled.
The new mobility allowance is a good start, but it needs to be set at a much higher level to be really effective. In saying that, I am in no way being churlish about the Secretary of State's announcement that he proposes to increase the allowance from £5 a week to £7 from October. But when one looks at the current rate of inflation, at the rising cost

of petrol and increased taxes on motor vehicles, one cannot say that within a year the increase in the allowance will not have been overtaken by increased costs. Nevertheless, I welcome the increase.
There is no provision yet for the capital cost of buying a car. Today I looked down the list of prices of new cars. For the smallest new car one has to pay £1,700 to £1,800. Therefore, it is essential that something should be worked out between the Government and the various disabled persons associations to cover the capital cost. I welcome the proposal that has been made by the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that some fund for doing this should be sponsored by the Government.
We should remove the discrimination between men and women. It is nonsense that women should cease to receive their mobility allowance at the age of 60 and men at the age of 65. It would cost £6,500,000 to eliminate that discrimination. I do not think that that point is fully appreciated, but it is part of the total anomaly in having different retirement ages for men and women. We must also raise the age limit for the mobility allowances to 70. Those two measures together would cost £22 million. From the age of 70 onwards I should like to see the mobility allowance phased out by a certain amount each year rather than stopped abruptly. To cut the mobility allowance off when a disabled person reaches a certain age is too ruthless.
The mobility allowance should be tax free and the reason for that is simple—the allowance is intended to compensate people for their immobility. Therefore, at best, when a more generous allowance is given, one has only put the disabled person level with the person of normal mobility. The allowance can, therefore, in no way, be considered as a grant. It is an aid to normal living. It is compensation for a disadvantage. It is in the same category as the attendance allowance, so I hope that, when the Finance Bill comes before the House, Treasury Ministers will be able to offer us this change.
In the meantime, it is quite clear that until the mobility allowance can be put on to a sufficiently generous basis to enable everybody eligible for it to have a vehicle of his own, the trike must be retained. There seems to be universal


recognition in the House that that is the right thing to do.
Not until all these things have been done will the disabled members of our community be able to obtain the full advantage of the mobility allowance, which I recognise as a major step forward. Let no one detract from that. I end with the last words of the quotation that I read from the Snowdon Committee Report that unless the mobility allowance is adequate:
you might as well stay where you are
That must be a warning to all of us that until all the disabled can move reasonably around the country and can live like normal people, not only in doing their jobs but in having a normal social life, we shall have not done right by the disabled people of our country.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I have always been sceptical about the trike. Its accident rate on the roads is bad, it is not a safe vehicle, and Lady Sharp recommended in her report that the trikes should be replaced by adapted cars. I agree, but Lady Sharp wanted to throw more than 13,000 disabled drivers out of the scheme. I call that rather heartless. The Minister with responsibility for the disabled did not agree and instead of throwing those drivers out of the scheme he gave many thousands of disabled drivers a new option by introducing the mobility allowance. However, he left the trike for those who still want it. I emphasise that point. The Minister's aim was to ensure that nobody would be made immobile by the phasing out of the trike.
The Minister gave outdoor mobility help for the first time to an extra 100,000 of the most severely disabled people in this country including 30,000 severely disabled children. I must emphasise that this was done in spite of opposition from Members on the other side who are insisting on large public expenditure cuts. Public expenditure on mobility help for the disabled is—as has already been stated in the House—being trebled. The number of disabled people receiving out door mobility help is 87,000. It has already been mentioned that 43,000 receive the new mobility allowance but 44,000 retain the benefits under the old vehicle scheme.
Tribute should therefore be paid to the dedicated work that has been done by the minister with responsibility for the disabled who is now helping more disabled people than ever before. In those circumstances the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) was rather pernickety and churlish in criticising my hon. Friend. On Monday 24th January my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) asked the Prime Minister:
if he will list the headings of all new help for disabled peoplefi including decisions and actions taken by all Government Departments since the appointment of the first Minister for the Disabled in March 1974."—[Official Report, 24th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 471.]
The Minister, responsible for the disabled, who had been asked to reply, thereupon listed no fewer than 85 matters in which the Government had improved the lot of the disabled, including mobility allowance for some 100,000 new beneficiaries—disabled children and adults. In these circumstances the Minister should receive the greatest support possible from all hon. Members.
I must also endorse what has been said by various hon. Members from both sides of the House about the Treasury. We are not doing enough for the disabled, but that is not the fault of the Minister. It is not he who should be on the mat this afternoon but the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary.
For example, it is distressing that the Minister has not been able to extend benefits to those aged over 65. Here I must declare a potential interest because I am aged 67 and I have two steel hips and arthritis of the spine. Thank heavens, I do not yet need a mobility allowance but I still have a potential interest to declare. People aged over 65 need more than those under 65. My right hon. Friends at the Treasury do not know that as people grow older they need more comfort. They do not want to be phased out when they reach the age of 65 so that they have no more mobility allowance and must just wait to die. I know this because I am over 65. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, is a mere stripling—well, a substantial stripling, but nevertheless a stripling—and knows nothing of the problems of old people. I hope that one day he will be as old as


I am and much older. I hope that he will be a very old man indeed. When he is he will realises that people of that age need more comforts and more help. Yet what are we told by the unfortunate Minister responsible for the disabled? We are told that we have not the money at present and that those aged over 65 will be phased in as soon as possible.
I want the Minister to go to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary and to insist on getting more money for people aged over 65 now. The sooner that we do that the better. Let us have the Treasury on the mat.

5.49 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I hope that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaches the ripe old age to which the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) referred he will have a much more generous heart. One item of interest in this debate is the number of times that the Treasury has been mentioned, and I hope that the Chancellor will take note of the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I do not wish to decry any of the very good work which has been done by the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. As a Back Bencher, I appreciate his constant courtesy and help with any specific cases which I bring to his attention. I am sure that other hon. Members will endorse that view. However, I wish to raise some specific matters before deciding whether to vote against the Government should the Opposition call a Division.
Will the Minister review the whole question of eligibility for the mobility allowance? The definition—being virtually unable to walk—is an arbitrary way of deciding whether someone should be eligible. The disabled, like us, have good and bad days. The conditions under which the test is applied may vary—for example, the weather, the number of people in shopping centres, and so on.
I am thinking particularly of those who suffer from multiple sclerosis, some of whom are able to travel to work in the morning but by the end of the day find themselves completely exhausted and have to rely on others to get them home at night. The Government should review the whole question. More than a medical

opinion is involved in such a decision. For example, hospital social workers who know the background to a case could be involved.
I suggest that this proposal should be extended to decisions affecting parking discs for disabled passengers. There have been several instances in my constituency when it has been difficult for disabled passengers to obtain such discs for their family cars. That has caused great problems not only to the disabled passenger but to the whole family.
I welcome the fact that the allowance is to be uprated. However, inflation must be taken into consideration, plus the proposed increase in petrol tax. After today's news that petrol will be increased in price by 2½p per gallon because of producers' prices, there is an even stronger argument for ensuring that the increase is not taken away before it is paid. The Scottish Council on Disability has suggested that, although the mobility allowance should be kept as a taxable allowance, to make it worth while it should be raised to £10, thereby guaranteeing a £7 take-home level.
I make no apology for referring to the trikes, which represent a vexed question. I am disappointed that a guaranteed re placement has not been announced today. I felt sure that the Minister would have seen his way clear to give us a date by which we could expect the replacement to be available. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State appeared to be satisfied with the level of research which is going on. I am not.
I am also deeply concerned about the effect on youngsters of 16 or 17 years of age who wish to go on to further education or to take up employment of not being allowed to have a vehicle and no longer having the opportunity of learning to drive as the assessment, advice and training previously available through the Vehicle Service is no longer available.
I should like the Invacar to be continued until there is a replacement for it. In many cases it is the poorer disabled who are most adversely affected. Families with a certain amount of wealth can usually adequately compensate a disabled relative regarding transport, but poorer sections of the community cannot compensate in that way.
A further point concerns the commutation scheme. When will it get under way? What will be the extent of it? How many loans per year will there be? It is a good idea, but it does not seem to take into account the cost of servicing and repairing cars. Driving for the disabled is not a luxury but an absolute necessity.
I should like an assurance on upper age limits. The Secretary of State said that he expected that by 1979 all people up to retirement age would be included in the scheme. It is a shame that the scheme has not been extended. If people have been eligible for the mobility allowance during their working lives, it must come as a severe blow not to be entitled to it on retirement, when their life styles may be more difficult to cope with.
Concerning the lower age limit, a number of families in my constituency have young disabled children. These are poor families without cars. They have great difficulty in arranging for their youngsters to have a day at the seaside. We should therefore consider making an allowance for the disabled from the cradle to the grave.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. John Ovenden: I have sat through many speeches of a churlish nature from the Opposition Front Bench, but today's contribution by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) must outrank all others. Members less charitable than myself might suggest that it was hypocritical. Perhaps I am too generous. I content myself by saying that it revealed a total misunderstanding of the situation, and I leave it at that.
This argument has been riddled with misconceptions about what the Government are doing and what their policy is. Some of the misconceptions have been based on genuine misunderstanding, but I suspect that others have been based on deliberate misunderstanding and distortion of Government policy.
It would have been helpful if, during the last few months, spokesmen for other parties had gone out of their way to try to dispel the fears of disabled drivers rather than to trade on them. Listening to some hon. Members, one could perhaps be excused for believing that the old system of mobility support was perfect.

But, looking back, one realises how inadequate that system was. Therefore the Government must be given credit for the advance that they have made.
There are about 3 million disabled or handicapped people in this country. Nearly half of them are so severely disabled that they could not drive a specialist car of any type, whatever we did for them. Yet the old scheme gave no help to them. It gave no help to 30,000 disabled children whose families had to cater for their mobility. Parents had to stretch their family budget to afford a motor car to ferry their disabled child or children around. As I said, the old scheme did nothing for them. Yet, to listen to some hon. Members today, one might think that it was a perfect system.
The introduction of the mobility allowance was a great breakthrough in the extension of mobility to a much wider group of people than had benefited in the past. It has been of enormous value to people who are too severely disabled to drive and to disabled children.
One family in my constituency has two disabled children. Before the introduction of the mobility allowance, that family had no support from the State to help with its problems. Now it has £10 a week in mobility support. Indeed, thanks to the announcement made today by my right hon. Friend, it will shortly have £14 a week. I ask those who criticise the moves that the Government have made to compare the plight of such families, before the introduction of the mobility allowance with the support that they are now getting.
Those who qualified for invalid tricycles under the old system found the scheme far from perfect. For many years there have been complaints about the standard, design and safety of invalid cars. I think that all hon. Members have received the most common complaint, namely, that disabled drivers could not take their families in their cars. Consequently they became social outcasts because their families went to the seaside by train and the disabled drivers had to drive there and meet them at the station. We should not impose that situation on anyone, disabled or not.
Over recent months there have been grave fears among the disabled that their tricycles might be taken away. But the


announcement that the tricycle was to be phased out over a period of not less than five years went some way to calm their fears. The Government need to go further. We need a definite pledge that they will do something positive in the near future about replacing this vehicle with a specialist vehicle. I find it disturbing that there is at present no definite evidence that there is a replacement. Many of my hon. Friends find that equally disturbing. We must give priority to a new specialist vehicle, and we must let the disabled know that we are acting now.
I remind my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that we have a big public financial involvement in the motor car industry. British Leyland is a nationalised industry and Chrysler is dependent on Government financial support for its continued existence. I see no reason why the Government should not be able to go to either one of those firms and ask it to give priority to the development of a new specialist vehicle. The Government should be able to go to those firms and ask for some support.
For too long the argument about mobility has been distorted. It has been distorted between the supporters of mobility allowance and the supporters of specialist vehicles. I believe that to be a false argument. The disabled need freedom of choice. There is no universal provision for the disabled, because there is no universal category or standard of disability. Individual needs vary because of the different nature of disabilities. There is a continued need for a specialist vehicle for people who cannot drive other vehicles. There are a number of people in that category.
A large number of disabled people would prefer the right to buy their own vehicles if they had the opportunity to do so. Only a realistic level of mobility allowance will allow that to become a reality. We have moved some way towards that today. Anyone who did not welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the £7 mobility allowance would be extremely churlish.
I welcome it. It conforms entirely with the figure suggested last year by the Central Council for the Disabled as being a realistic level of disability allowance.

The council suggested a figure of £7, but we need to go further: we need to do something positive about commutation. The £7 a week will not provide people with an alternative to a specialist vehicle. Unless we have a system of commutation, people will perhaps still be housebound because of the lack of mobility.
I would impress a further point upon my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope that the new £1 allowance will be index linked, not just index linked to the retail price index, but to the special index of motoring costs. Many hon. Members know that motoring costs do not move in line with the RPI and that in recent years they have moved ahead more rapidly.
The Government's policy is moving in the direction of freedom of choice, but if we are to make that a complete reality, we must have, first, a commutation system and, secondly, a more generous attitude fom the Treasury towards the lifting of VAT and special car tax for disabled people buying vehicles. When the Government are themselves exempt from this tax when buying invalid vehicles, I do not see why individual disabled persons should not also be exempt. We must do that if we are to make freedom of choice a reality.
We could also make some progress with regard to the Employment Services Agency scheme, which provides for those less disabled who need help with mobility to work. I find the Employment Services Agency scheme complicated, secretive and totally ineffective in scope. Last October the junior Minister at the Department of Employment told me that the total expenditure on the scheme last year was £64,000. That is totally inadequate. The Department of Employment should make a real contribution to mobility so that disabled people can go to work and so that the whole burden is not borne by my hon. Friends at the DHSS.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I hope to be as commendably brief as the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden). I shall confine myself to a rather narrow, personal aspect of the invalid vehicle service which arose during the period when I was a junior Minister at the Department of Health in the last Government and had some responsibility


in this regard. It relates to what has been described as "the case of the forged document".
In December 1973 the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was sent a document purporting to be an internal DHSS memorandum allegedly drafted and signed by myself and addressed to a departmental official called Mr. Salter. The implication of the text of that forged document was that notwithstanding any evidence that the three-wheelers were not safe on the roads it would nevertheless be impolitic to admit as much, either in public or in the House. This was clearly a damaging memorandum, if authentic.
On 20th December 1973 I stated publicly in the House—from the Government Dispatch Box in reply to a Question—that I had not drafted or signed this document and that it was a forgery. Incidentally, it was palpably a forgery. The signature was demonstrably not mine. The officer to whom it was allegedly addressed had left the Department six months earlier and gone to Brussels. There were in the typing of the memorandum a number of technical defects which made it clear that it had not come from the Department of Health. I now wish to take this opportunity categorically to repeat this denial of authorship or responsibility for this forged memorandum and to reassert that it was a forgery.
It is necessary for me to do so because Mr. Peter MacBryan of the Invalid Tricycle Action Group continues to accuse me of lying to the House about the matter. Indeed, he has gone further. First, following my categorical denial for responsibility for this memorandum he referred the forged document to Sir Alan Marre, then the Ombudsman, who in his sixth report in July 1975 concluded in paragraph 80:
I do not myself find at all convincing the reasons Mr. MacBryan gave for believing the document to be an authentic memorandum addressed by Mr. Alison to a senior official at the beginning of November 1973. When he was told that Mr. Salter had left DHSS earlier in the year, Mr. MacBryan suggested he might have returned temporarily and been there at the material time. But I am satisfied that did not happen
Sir Alan went on:
I have interviewed Mr. Alison and have receiver his personal assurance that he did not

write the memorandum. I unhesitatingly accept that assurance.
Since then Mr. MacBryan put in hand a Scotland Yard investigation to see whether the police could accept the story that I did not produce this document. The police found that the story I told was true and credible. They in turn have now been denounced by Mr. MacBryan for corruptly accepting my version of the story in return for services that I had allegedly bestowed on the police. Mr. MacBryan has implied that the police accepted my story because they were in some sense indebted to me.
I find that in the latest published statement on the allegation of my authorship of this forged document Mr. MacBryan has written:
Alfred Morris MP, Mrs. Barbara Castle MP, former Opposition Spokesman on Social Services, and Harold Wilson MP, former leader of the Opposition persuaded Michael Alison MP, former Social Services Secretary, Sir Keith Joseph MP, and former Prime Minister, Edward Heath MP to accept an undercover 'deal' pledging Conservative Party support for a mobility allowance scheme which was politically acceptable to the Labour Party—in return for the silence of Alfred Morris in not revealing the authenticity of the Alison Memorandum and his agreement not to press the issue further. Alfred Morris was also offered the additional reward of a Ministerial post for his silence over the issue by Harold Wilson.
I might add that the Secretary of State's statement during the course of the afternoon of the reason for which the present Minister was appointed to that post has up to now, been hotly denounced by Mr. MacBryan in the text of this document as yet a further attempt to mislead the House.
I must appeal, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to all hon. Members who receive correspondence about this from Mr. MacBryan not only not to believe him but to urge him, in the interests of his own credibility and of the good cause which, no doubt, he wishes accurately and with the best of intentions to support, to abandon this ludicrous rigmarole of allegations which are incredible and untrue, and to return to the constructive purposes which, no doubt, he had of promoting the cause of the disabled.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has referred to the allegations by Mr. Peter MacBryan of the Invalid Tricycle Action


Group concerning a memorandum which the hon. Gentleman is alleged to have signed when he was at the Department, and which has, as the hon. Gentleman said, been the subject of representations to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and to the police. In none of these quarters has Mr. MacBryan received support for his allegations, and I must now echo the view of the Parliamentary Commissioner that quite enough attention has already been paid to them.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Like most people, I welcome the increase in the mobility allowance from £5 to £7. I suppose that when we discuss a subject entitled "Mobility for the Disabled" it is inevitable that there should be a heavy concentration on car mobility. My correspondence refers almost exclusively to the issue of the trike, but the subject of disability goes very much wider. I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) chose to try to keep the debate so narrow, because it is important that we should also consider mobility in the home.
What the disabled want above all is independence, an opportunity to lead as full and as normal a life as possible within the range of their disability. To me, mobility for the disabled begins in the home. The local authorities have a responsibility to bring into practical effect the great deal of research which has been done to allow people to be mobile within their homes.
This is even more important from the point of view of the disabled housewife. There is now available a wide range of what one might call kitchen equipment, such as low level stoves, and, indeed, high level stoves, to suit the particular disablement. There are also folding tables, which can be used beside the sink to assist the housewife. All these things are vital, and if only local authorities will use their imagination and their will to bring them into being, we can transform the home life of many disabled.
Indeed, many of the things which can be done for the disabled in the home are so mundane that one does not think of

them—for example, lowering the level of light switches to the level of the wheelchair, raising the level of power points to the level of the wheelchair. These things are important not only for people confined to a wheelchair but for those who are unsteady on their feet, who have a locomotive disability of the lower limbs. The same principle applies to the adaptation of houses as well as to the design of new ones.
There is a great deal of will among local authorities to do these things, but somehow, when one deals with individual cases, one often finds that it takes a long time for anything to happen. Yet mobility in the home leads to mobility outside it. One has to become mobile inside the home before one can become mobile outside it.
Again, why does it take so long for simple things like ramps to be constructed for the use of people in wheelchairs in the street? Ramps are also helpful to people who are unsteady on their feet. The responsibility for providing these things is divided between various authorities in Scotland, and generally speaking there is good co-operation and good will. Yet there is no doubt that communication between these authorities seems to be difficult and there is often delay. The obvious answer is to reform local government again, but I shall not go into that subject now.
A great deal can be done to assist mobility. Surely at every pedestrian crossing and at traffic lights the kerb step should be done away with and a gentle slope substituted. The need for all these things is so well understood and recognised that one cannot understand why they are not happening in sufficient quantity in sufficient places.
In the big cities a great amount of road work is always going on, and one would think that these facilities to aid the mobility of the disabled would be provided as a matter of course, and surely there would be no serious cost. The Department and the local authorities must be constantly reminded that mobility for the disabled is not simply about the ability to use a car, but concerns the ability of disabled people generally to have their independence and an opportunity to live as full a life as possible within the range of their disability.
I turn now to the question of the trike versus the four-wheeled car. We are apt all too readily to forget the atmosphere that existed four or five years ago. When I was at the Scottish Office, I received a letter—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security received one as well—from a disabled person's organisation which called the Government murderers because we kept the trike on the road. There was a constant and strident campaign saying that the trike represented death on the road and that the Government were killing off disabled people. Some of those who now think that it was a mistake to decide on the withdrawal of the trike must bear some responsibility for furthering that campaign.
As a Minister, I had to decide on appeal who was to get a trike and who was not, and I remember my worry as to whether people were fit enough to handle a trike. We must also remember that at that time we were, in effect, narrowing the effort and the assistance given to the disabled. The assistance went largely to people who were the least worst off in their disablement. If a disabled person was able to drive, he got a trike; if he was unable to drive a trike, he got nothing. This is why the mobility allowance has been such a boon.
We now have to consider carefully how far we are encouraging the disabled to believe that the whole motoring costs of an individual disabled person and family should be met entirely by the State. People constantly say that the mobility allowance is all right but that it is not nearly enough, that it is taxable and should not be. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, we want the disabled to be active. Therefore, we should not build up the psychology that they should be insulated from outside events. We have to encourage them to be truly independent, to go out to work—although that is more difficult with high unemployment—to go out for training, for education, and so on.
This does not mean, however, that the Government can be absolved from their responsibility. The decision to phase out the trike was taken primarily on safety grounds, as well as from the point of view that the mobility allowance would cover a wider range. When one starts a new

benefit, the capability of expanding it grows infinitely. It has been argued that the blind should be brought into the mobility allowance. Thus, the demand for an increase in the allowance is not confined to its monetary level or adequacy, but embraces people in other categories as well as those already in receipt of it.
As I have said, the decision to phase out the trike was taken primarily on ground of safety. If we are to have a four-wheeled vehicle available in its place, the research and design should start now, and we should be particularly careful about the question of manoeuvrability. There is another factor to take into account, and that is that a person who can drive a trike safely and easily in a city might not be safe in a four-wheeled car on a motorway.
We have to take all these paradoxes and difficulties into consideration in dealing with this problem. Inevitably, in such a debate, one is short of time and is never really able to cover all the ground that one would like to cover.
It would be a basic mistake to rely on private funds to pay an allowance to enable people to capitalise on their mobility allowance and purchase a car. I prefer the allowance to be given by the Treasury. That is the way to go about it. It would be wrong to rely upon a charitable body and I hope that the Treasury will be encouraged to take action.
The mobility allowance is basically sound. Time and time again we have said that people should have the right to choose. The only way of giving them that choice is to provide sufficient cash. I congratulate the Government on increasing the mobility allowance from £5 to £7.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am sure that all hon. Members agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about the problems and difficulties of obtaining ramps, door handles and switches at the right levels.
I want to refer particularly to the problems facing disabled people who are retired or who are about to reach retirement age. All hon. Members will have constituency cases, but I want to bring to the attention of the House one particular case which, after discussion with


those concerned, I have permission to raise.
It concerns a Mr. and Mrs. Parkin of Yeadon. Mrs. Parkin is 58 and her husband 64. Both are disabled, not because of immobility in their limbs, but because they have breathing difficulties and cannot move easily. The wife became a registered disabled person first, but, since she was not able to drive, she did not apply for an invalid vehicle. Her husband became disabled 18 months ago and he has an invalid car. He has also received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Security, written on 26th July, which states:
I wish to point out that your entitlement to the supply of a three-wheeler ceases on 10th June 1978 when you reach pension age, and any vehicle on loan to you at that time will be withdrawn.
I fully appreciate the Government's problems in trying to make inadequate resources stretch as far as possible in order to help disabled people. Hon. Members have put pressure on the Government during the debate. If they wish to increase the mobility of disabled people, they must will the end. Any scheme for the administration of aid to the disabled must be flexible. It is difficult to understand why mobility should be physically withdrawn from a disabled person. It is even more difficult to understand why it should be withdrawn when it has only just been given.
Frankly, it is indefensible that such mobility should be withdrawn when it results in a closed door for two disabled people. Although the Minister's courteous handling of my constituents' problems was impeccable, I am worried about the regulations. I cannot fault the Minister's handling of this case, but he has compounded one of the major failings of the administration of the scheme, namely, that the regulations do not permit exceptions.
The Government should be congratulated on lifting the mobility allowance.

Mr. Ennals: I do not know the details of the hon. Member's case, but I am ready to look at it sympathetically if he brings it to my attention.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention and I shall do what he suggests.
The lifting of the allowance is an important contribution towards helping the disabled and it will be welcomed by everyone. At the same time, there should be more flexibility in the interpretation of the conditions under which vehicles can be issued, particularly for those on the verge of retirement.
The cost to the community of a household that has no mobility is high. I am thinking in terms of public transport, for instance. It is difficult for a disabled person to reach a bus stop, and hiring a vehicle is out of the question. The particular problem of a retired disabled couple is that they are unable to reach the Post Office to collect their benefits. The couple in my constituency will probably require the help of a warden.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is present and I am grateful to him for his earlier intervention. When we discuss the problems of the disabled, we talk about cash limits and the type of vehicle that is most suitable, but we must agree that some flexibility when dealing with the sheer human problem is of paramount importance.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: All hon. Members have agreed that the main method of tackling the problem of mobility is through the mobility allowance. Hon. Members have agreed that the basic principle behind the mobility allowance is correct and that the criterion for helping mobility should be the degree of disability and not the ability or inability of a disabled person to drive.
I have received criticisms of the way in which the criteria are applied in practice. For example, the other week I represented a constituent at an appeal tribunal. I should have thought that the mobility allowance was tailor-made for the girl whom I represented, but she was turned down. There are people who have been granted a mobility allowance, but who, on the face of it, appear to be less deserving.
Whenever one moves from a discriminatory system to a non-discriminatory system there are problems. That is because some of the beneficiaries of the previous discrimination complain that their advantage will disappear. That is at the centre of today's debate.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said that he personally agreed that the mobility allowance was the correct way of tackling the problem. He said that cash was better than hardware. I have, therefore, found it difficult to understand the raison d'être behind the Opposition's move against the Government. It is acceptable to have a debate about the mobility of disabled people and to face the real problems that exist, but when the right hon. Member said that there was no disagreement about the principle but that there was disagreement about the timing and methods he was eschewing principle—and no wonder.
I turn now to the phasing out of the trike and the stories about people being grounded. That is a peculiar phrase to use and implies that some disabled people previously had wings. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said that the mobility allowance was not sufficient. We all agree with that. He also said that, since a suitable alternative vehicle is not available, we should keep the trike. But to keep the trike would cost more. Therefore, either more must be spent on mobility for disabled people or, within a fixed budget, less must be spent on non-drivers than on drivers. That argument is indisputable.
I believe that this Government's record on mobility for the disabled is unequalled by any previous Government. Of course the mobility allowance should be increased; of course, a commutation system should be introduced: but all these will cost a great deal more than is being spent at present. In my view, if there is to be more spent on enabling disabled people to be mobile it must not be spent in such a way as to perpetuate discrimination. It must be spent in a way which brings all disabled people nearer the goal of total mobility.

6.30 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: It is clear from what has been said from both sides of the House that we all agree that the mobility allowance is a desirable and, on the whole, satisfactory way of meeting certain kinds of needs, and we welcome the increased mobility allowance which the Secretary of State announced today. We also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he expects trikes to have a rather longer life than he thought previously. This is very good

news. But we cannot welcome the fact that he is still doing nothing to provide a vehicle for the young and the newly disabled.
We have heard a great deal today about fairness. Here is a group of people who manifestly are being treated unfairly. What we are discussing today is whether all disabled people should have the dignity which comes from being able to move freely outside their homes, the dignity which comes from being able to go out to work if they wish and are able to do so, and the dignity which comes from being able to go out shopping and to pursue social activities.
We raise this debate today because we are deeply concerned about the plight of those people who have been denied the dignity of being able to get out and who, since the change of policy last year, have been denied the dignity of having satisfactory vehicles of their own. That is the issue behind much of what we have been discussing.
From Questions asked in the House recently it has become clear that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—and not just Opposition Members, as has been implied—are increasingly worried about this. It has become clear also that the Government have misjudged the situation. I am not being personally critical when I say that. I can understand how it occurred. The Government have mismanaged the situation, and now they do not know what to do.
The Government's record is against them. We have had three and a half years of confusion and uncertainty about what was to happen to invalid vehicles, culminating in the decision last year to withdraw the trike without any immediate alternative policy to replace the trike by another vehicle. That is the extraordinary and unhappy position into which the Government have got themselves.
It is not surprising that since then we have seen mounting anxiety on the part of the disabled through their organisations. It culminated in February, when there was a unanimous request to the Government to admit that there had been a mistake, to admit their failure and to change the policy.
I know that that request was unanimous, because I was at the meeting


at which it was made. I heard people on every side saying that this was what they wanted; many of them saying, that, whereas a year or two ago they had been asking on safety grounds for the trike to be withdrawn, they now realised that they had made a mistake, and asking the Government to be flexible enough to appreciate what had happened and to go back on their tracks to help them.
In the past year we have had a series of statements from the Secretary of State intending, he kept telling us, to reduce the anxiety. In fact, each statement increased the anxiety. Each statement made it apparent to everyone that he had no constructive alternative policy to offer. Again, we can understand why his difficulties arose. But that is what happened. He said by implication that he actually intended, although I do not think that he really intended this, to leave at home, isolated and inactive, young disabled people who were capable of work and of leading an active mobile life.
The Secretary of State talked about fairness. However it seems to many of us that this is manifestly and grossly unfair.
Living in Birmingham is a man of 20 named Len. He left school at 15 and trained as a shoe repairer. Last year he had a serious motor cycle accident. He is now paralysed below the waist and badly scarred. His former employers would give him suitably sedentary work so that he could return to his trade provided he had transport to get him to work. No one in his family has a car. The family is experiencing many social problems at the moment. The £5, shortly to be £7, mobility allowance will not enable him to pay for his transport needs. But an invalid trike would have given him immediate independence and the ability to work. Under the previous policy, he would have had a trike.
Charles was attending his local grammar school. Last year he met with an accident. He overbalanced and fell from a bridge. He, too, is now paralysed from the waist down. He spent five months in a spinal injuries unit. He was discharged in December. He could return to school, where he wishes to remain for another two years in order to take his A-level examinations, and he wishes then to go on to enter a university. I have no

doubt that he could succeed. But he cannot do this without personal transport.
He is only one of 3,000 people in this position. Even if his parents could give him a car, he would be unable to obtain a licence until he was 17 years of age. If his accident had occurred more than a year ago, he would have been issued with an invalid trike and would have been mobile and free to attend his school.
That is the hard reality of the situation. In three different ways the Government have prevented groups of people from being able to work. The new disabled have no trikes and no mobility. Young school leavers have no trikes and no mobility, unless the mobility allowance is enough for their families. People who have insufficient cash, even with the mobility allowance, to provide their own transport have no mobility. These are the people about whom we are concerned, and that is why we put down this motion for debate.

Mr. George Cunningham: What motion?

Dr. Vaughan: The full extent of the confusion came home to me just before Christmas when I asked the Minister about the number of people receiving money for personal transport from the Employment Service Agency. He did not seem to know at that time that the scheme existed. Certainly he did not know the details of the scheme. He said, quite fairly, that he thought it unsatisfactory that two Departments of the Government should be providing funds for travel. We agree.
But what has he done since then? He has left the situation exactly as it was. We cannot blame him too much if he did not know the extent of the scheme. Most people did not know about it. As we have heard today, only 350 of all those who could benefit from it took advantage of the scheme last year. The publicity was poor. Not enough people knew that they were entitled to it. Already the numbers are increasing.
There are, of course, other examples of muddle in this field, and I do not propose to go into the details today. But we have the muddle of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It is not working as Parliament intended. The resources are not there to back it up. It


is leading—by raising hopes—to disappointment, resentment and confusion.
There is the constant and totally unnecessary muddle over forms. Surely forms should be understandable by those who have to use them. Many of the forms are ludicrously complicated, and the mobility allowance form is a very good example of this. We on the Conservative side intend setting up a working party to look into this.
Why have we not heard more from the Government about alternative vehicles? The Government say that they are looking into this but they do not tell us clearly what is available, what thinking is going on, and what is actually being done in this respect. I assure the House that a great deal of work is being done, but we do not hear of it from the Government Benches.
The Secretary of State, in what I thought—picking my words carefully here—was misplaced sarcasm, produced a new argument: that an alternative vehicle would be excessively costly. Is that really so? I do not believe that it is. There are discussions going on with the Government concerning the provision of a vehicle at a very economical level. The Minister should tell us about this.
Thank goodness, the motor companies have realised now that if anything is to happen the action will have to come from them rather than from the Government. They have realised that it is not necessary to seek for one vehicle to cover the multitude of different kinds of disablement. That is past thinking, thank goodness, and it is perfectly possible—the Minister knows this from the Ford Escort that he and I have both seen—to adapt a production car at a relatively cheap cost to cover about half—10,000—of the people who at the moment use an invalid trike. That is a very considerable number.
I suggest to the Minister that he should give us much more information about the financial packages which are being talked about and recommended. We ask the Government to be much franker in the whole of this area, and never again to try fobbing us off with erroneous and misleading statements about the Common Market. They do not stand up to ex-

amination. The Minister should admit that he has been trapped in a rigid policy of phasing out the trike.
We should like to put four proposals to the Minister every one of which could be carried out now. First, he should state that it is Government policy that no disabled person should be denied personal mobility to work, to go to school, or to go to a university if it is reasonably possible. Is that asking too much?

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman define "reasonable"?

Dr. Vaughan: Secondly, he should listen to disabled people and allow them to continue to have the trike until a reasonable alternative is provided. Thirdly, he should allow young and newly disabled people to have the trike if they wish to do so. Is that unreasonable?

Mr. George Cunningham: We could have decided that tonight if the Opposition had put down a motion to that effect.

Dr. Vaughan: Alternatively, special funds should be available in addition to the mobility allowance, to enable people to work. Finally, the Government should give a real lead and show enthusiasm in this field.
The key issue for me was exemplified by the woman who said to me "I am more afraid of being left alone, trapped in my own home, unable to go out, than of anything else." She is not allowed a vehicle under the present policy. Hers is the voice that the Government are ignoring.
It is for these reasons that I shall ask the House to divide on this issue tonight.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): The debate started as if it might well deserve to be described as nasty, brutish and short. In fact, it improved as it went on and has been quite a useful, increasingly rational but, unfortunately, still rather short debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said that the disability of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) was his Toryism. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), by contrast, said


that the right hon. Gentleman's disability was that he is a former Treasury Minister. The right hon. Gentleman came on as though he was the prison chaplain, and all of us know that he is a former gaoler. It has been pointed out more than once during the debate that he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the previous Government decided to abolish the petrol allowance for disabled drivers. I am very glad that this Government not only restored the petrol allowance but doubled its amount. The right hon. Gentleman was certainly a member of the previous Administration who cancelled the petrol allowance, and it does not lie in his mouth to express very deep concern for the problems of disabled drivers.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), in winding up for the Opposition, referred to the case of Len of Birmingham. I had rather expected that there might be some particular cases raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has had a word with me and has said that he will be delighted, as a Minister in the Department of Employment, to have that case looked into immediately. I make the point early in my winding-up speech that the Employment Service Agency scheme is, of course, under review in consequence of the decisions that were announced on 23rd July.
The hon. Member for Reading, South also referred to the case of Charles, a 16 year old, who regrettably became a paraplegic because of an accident. Again I must emphasise that local education authorities have the right to give help, over and above the mobility allowance, to people who need such help in order to proceed with their education. I hope that the local authority to which the hon. Gentleman referred will look at that case against the background of its entitlement to help young people in that particular situation. If he wishes me to join with him in making an approach for the case to be reviewed I shall be very glad to consider his request.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. We should remind ourselves that we are now verging upon a figure of 900,000 severely disabled people who have been identified as such throughout this country. Many disabled people have

said to me that I ought to have argued for litigation in order to ensure the full implementation of the Act. I have always said that I prefer implementation to litigation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, and their right hon. and hon. Friends, will do what they can in their localities to see that the Act is fully and humanely implemented throughout this country.
I have a very difficult task, in that there have been many extremely valuable speeches in this important debate. The debate has confirmed what I think we all knew before it started—that this is a most complex and difficult subject. This provides me with a chance further to explain the Government's policy on providing mobility help for disabled people and on seeking to provide help for more than 3 million handicapped and impaired people.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who has my deep respect and regard for all the services he has given to his fellow disabled, referred to the problem of young disabled people. I am quite certain that the Queen Elizabeth Foundation would not subscribe to the figure quoted by his right hon. Friend. It is because of our concern with the transitional problems which have been created by the decision to phase out the invalid tricycle that we are in close contact with the Central Council for the Disabled. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said as much as we can say about these negotiations at present. My right hon. Friend and I can assure the right hon. Member for Bridlington that we have the points he has made much in mind and we recognise the importance of all that he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South recognised that we are dealing with difficult transitional problems. I was pressed time and again, just as my ministerial predecessors were, to phase out the invalid tricycle on safety grounds. It has been argued repeatedly in this debate that we hear much less now about the safety issue. This is still an important question and there is evidence that new users, not least young people, have been more at risk than others in driving the invalid tricycle.
I must emphasise that we now help more people, including more young people and newly disabled, with mobility help


than have ever been helped before in our history, but my right hon. Friend and I feel that we are not doing nearly enough. We want to build on the improvements we have made. We challenge the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford to say how much more he would spend on mobility if he is not to take away the new benefits from people who value them highly.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Morris: Could I say, before I give way, that I am very short of time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be brief.

Mr. Jenkin: In the debate on the Consolidated Fund the Minister made it abundantly clear that the decision not to allow the newly disabled the option of having a trike had nothing to do with money. Therefore, clearly, the giving of the option can have nothing to do with money.

Mr. Morris: I was talking about the subject of mobility for the disabled and not simply about the tricycle. By our announcement today, we are further increasing expenditure on mobility for the disabled.
I have been pressed today to include blind people. There was a very eloquent request from my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who would like blind people to be entitled to the mobility allowance. I must tell my hon. Friend that about 115,000 blind people would benefit at a cost of £42 million a year.
I have also been pressed to include the elderly. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) said that it would be widely appreciated if we could extend the mobility allowance to people above retirement age. That would cost £182 million a year. We must all decides what priority we are prepared to give to disabled people.

Mr. Ovenden: My hon. Friend will recall that during his speech the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Wood ford (Mr. Jenkin) suggested that there was such a degree of disenchantment at the Central Council for the Disabled that its Director had suggested that the Tory

Party should go into the Lobby tonight to vote against the Government. I have not received any communication from the Council expressing such dissatisfaction. I do not think that my hon. Friends have either. Has my hon. Friend received any communication expressing such a degree of dissatisfaction?

Mr. Morris: I regret that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford should have referred to what was, perhaps, regarded by the Director of the Central Council for the Disabled as a private conversation. I would not want to cause the Director any further embarrassment. I do not want to involve him in any dispute between the parties. He is a good servant of disabled people. I have been in touch with him, and I limit my remarks to making the point that I would not like him to be caused any embarrassment by what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in the debate. The Director has placed on record his belief that the mobility allowance is the best way to solve the problems of disabled people and that they can be solved on that basis. That statement has been publicly released by the Director of the Central Council for the Disabled.
The hon. Member for Reading, South spoke about the anxiety of organisations representing disabled people. Unfortunately, there has been no reference in the debate to the problems of mentally handicapped children. I received a letter today from George Lee, the Secretary-General of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. He refers to this debate and says that
the concept of a special allowance being made available to enable formerly housebound disabled persons to get out and about was both an imaginative and welcome one, not least to the members of this Society. My purpose in writing you now is to say how glad we are to learn that the Mobility Allowance is now to be debated and that the scheme is to be further extended so as to include children in the 5–10 age group. … The fact remains that the Mobility Allowance has resulted in a transformation in the lives of so many mentally handicapped persons and of their families, and they thank you for it.
It is no part of our policy to restrict mobility for the disabled. It has been said time and again by hon. Members from both sides that we have greatly extended the boundaries for disabled people: we are giving more mobility help to more


disabled people than has ever been given before. I know that there is much more to do. We want to do very much more in the service of the disabled.
We know that mobility is about adapting their homes, about new housing provision, about access to public and social buildings, as well as about vehicles, whether three-wheeled or four-wheeled. My right hon. Friend has given a personal pledge to existing tricycle drivers. He is aware of the difficulties of newly disabled people and he passionately wants to help. When he was not in the House between 1970 and 1974 he was helping disabled people outside the House.
I should have thought that the House can believe in the aims of the present Government. As I have said, we want to do much more in this important area. I

shall have regard to everything that has been said in the debate. I have a debate on mobility every day of the year with representatives of disabled people.

The right hon. Gentleman did win a prize today. He won a prize for ill-defined policies. I think that we have won the prize for performance. I ask the House not to divide its energies in the service of disabled people, but to come together in their service. I hope that the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford will be utterly rejected.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 263.

Division No. 110]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh
Hunt David (Wirral)


Alison, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Douglas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Arnold, Tom
Elliott, Sir William
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Emery, Peter
James, David


Awdry, Daniel
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Baker, Kenneth
Eyre, Reginald
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jopling, Michael


Benyon, W.
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fell, Anthony
Kershaw, Anthony


Biffen, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kimball, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Body, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel
Knox, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lamont, Norman


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawrence, Ivan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fry Peter
Lawson, Nigel


Brittan, Leon
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brooke, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lloyd, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Loveridge, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bryan, Sir Paul
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
MacCormick, Iain


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodhart, Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
McCusker, H.


Budgen, Nick
Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Neil


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John
MacGregor, John


Burden, F. A.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
MacKay, Andrew James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Carlisle, Mark
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Eldon
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian
Madel, David


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clark William (Croydon S)
Hall, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Cockcroft, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hannam, John
Mawby, Ray


Cope, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cormack, Patrick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mayhew, Patrick


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Crawford, Douglas
Havers, Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Crouch, David
Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miscampbell, Norman


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Henderson, Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hodgson, Robin
Monro, Hector


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Drayson, Burnaby
Hordern, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)




Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rifkind, Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tebbit, Norman


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mudd, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Neave, Airey
Royle, Sir Anthony
Thompson, George


Nelson, Anthony
Sainsbury, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D.


Neubert, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Tony
Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nott, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Onslow, Cranley
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shepherd, Colin
Wakeham, John


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shersby, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Parkinson, Cecil
Silvester, Fred
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sims, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Watt, Hamish


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Weatherill, Bernard


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Welsh, Andrew


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sproat, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd


Raison, Timothy
Stainton, Keith
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Rathbone, Tim
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanley, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stewart, Rt Donald
Younger, Hon George


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Rhodes James, R.
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Ridsdale, Julian
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Michael Roberts.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Horam, John


Allaun, Frank
Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Les


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Atkinson, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hunter, Adam


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dempsey, James
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A (Edge Hill)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Doig, Peter
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bates, Alf
Dormand, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bean, R. E.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Beith, A. J.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bishop, E. S.
Edge, Geoff
John, Brynmor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, David
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kelley, Richard


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock Neil


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lambie, David


Buchanan, Richard
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Campbell, Ian
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Freud, Clement
Lee, John


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Dr John
Lipton, Marcus


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Clemitson, Ivor
Golding, John
Loyden, Eddie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Gould, Bryan
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Coleman, Donald
Grant George (Morpeth)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Grant, John (Islington C)
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Conlan, Bernard
Harper, Joseph
McElhone, Frank


Corbett, Robin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cowans, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
MacKenzie, Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mackintosh, John P.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hatton, Frank
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cronin, John
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hooson, Emlyn
Marks, Kenneth







Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Meacher, Michael
Robert, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mendelson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mikardo, Ian
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tinn, James


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rodgers, Rt Hon W. (Stockton)
Tomlinson, John


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Rooker, J. W.
Tuck, Raphael


Molloy, William
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Moonman, Eric
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rowlands, Ted
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ryman, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Moyle, Roland
Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Michael


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Selby, Harry
Watkins, David


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Weetch, Ken


Newens, Stanley
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Weitzman, David


Noble, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ogden, Eric
Sillars, James
White, James (Pollok)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Small, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ovenden, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Padley, Walter
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Palmer, Arthur
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pardoe, John
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Park, George
Spriggs, Leslie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parker, John
Stallard, A. W.
Woodall, Alec


Parry, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woof, Robert


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Penhaligon, David
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.



Perry, Ernest
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Swain, Thomas
Mr. James Hamilton and


Price, William (Rugby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Mr. Speaker has selected the motion for an Instruction in the names of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and certain of his hon. Friends:
After Second Reading of Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 in Part III.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, the Greater London Council puts forward proposals for itself and the London boroughs which in its view are necessary for the good government of London. This Bill has as its theme facilities required to help to alleviate the serious industrial situation now being faced in London. It is a Private Bill, a local government Bill, and, although we constantly complain at having to discuss matters in this way, the House rightly takes such opportunities in order to have a debate on London's affairs. Once again, I put the complaint to the Government Front Bench that we should be found time to debate London matters without our having to use a device of this kind for that purpose.
Clauses 1 to 7 are specifically brought forward by the Greater London Council. Clauses 8 to 14 are for both the GLC and the boroughs. Clauses 15 to 17 are for the boroughs alone. For the convenience of the House, I shall highlight some of the clauses and the matters covered therein.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are designed to close two loopholes in the entertainments licensing law. Clause 3 deals with entertainment by way of posing. It is necessary to license this new phenomenon in entertainment, which is a fairly recent development. It consists essentially of the holding of still poses by performers, usually to the accompaniment of music, and this form of entertainment is outside licensing control as the law now stands.
The premises concerned are often former strip-tease establishments in

respect of which the GLC has refused to grant or renew any music licence. In one particularly bad case the police were able to note that the audience for the nude posing show numbered 140 as opposed to the maximum of only 100 which would have been permitted under the previous licence. There is, therefore, a clear need for protection to be afforded to the public, performers and staff under the control proposed.
Clause 4 is intended to resolve a problem arising on renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence. The problem at present is that the application for renewal or transfer, especially where it is opposed, cannot be determined before the date of expiry of the licence. It is the practice to raise no objection to the continued use of the premises until the application is determined, but the GLC is effectively debarred from taking enforcement action if premises are used in breach of the conditions that would have applied if the licence had still been in force.
It is to avoid that difficulty that Clause 4 deems the licence to remain in force until the application for renewal or transfer is determined or withdrawn. The GLC is thus enabled to enforce the observance of any conditions in the licence.
Clause 5 is designed to bring under licensing control by the GLC premises which, while appearing to offer strip tease or other similar entertainments, are in fact serving only as "booking offices" for other premises. In practice, this means that payment for admission is accepted before it is disclosed that the entertainment is to be given elsewhere and with out regard to the type or amount of accommodation available at the premises to which the customer is directed.
On arrival at those premises, the customer may find that there is in fact no accommodation available or that a further admission charge is required. These malpractices have given rise to complaints and disturbances. The bringing of "booking offices" under licensing control would enable the GLC to impose conditions—for instance, requiring it to be made quite clear to potential customers the limited service that is being offered at a "booking office".
I have been asked to state by the promoters that the House is to be assured that the provisions of Clause 5 are not


intended to take into account bona fide premises and that the promoters are ready to undertake any amendments and to offer assurances that will rectify the position if any exceptional cases arise.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On that point, I understood that some while ago negotiations were taking place with the bodies representing West End theatres. Can the hon. Gentleman say how far those negotiations have proceeded?

Mr. Brown: I shall take instructions later during the debate, but to the best of my knowledge the negotiations are still taking place and have not come to fruition. However, the promoters wish it to be known that they are making every endeavour to make clear the sort of "booking office" about which they are talking.
Clause 6 is being promoted to assist the Thames Water Authority, because the land proposed to be used for water storage is held by the GLC under the Open Spaces Act 1906 and restrictions in that Act on the use and disposal of open space land can be overcome only by specific legislation. The site will be returned to full use by the public as open space after the work is completed. The advice that I am tendered is that it is estimated that it may take two years for this work to be done, so the land will be out of public use for only two years and thereafter it will be landscaped and put back into general use.
Clause 7 relates to admission charges for exhibitions at Kenwood House. The clause takes the form of an addition to the powers of the trustees who administer Kenwood House and the Iveagh Bequest, which are vested in the GLC. At present charges can be made for only two days a week, excluding Sundays. The provisions of the clause will enable more use to be made of special exhibitions, as in the case of the Tate Gallery, and for charges to be made. Therefore, it is for the better use of special exhibitions, rather than cutting them off, because the trustees have no power to continue them without powers to charge.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are specifically promoted to assist industry in London. The House will recall our debate on 4th August 1976, in the early hours of the morning, when it was common ground

between both sides of the House that something had to be done to arrest the decline in industrial jobs in London. I shall not take up the time of the House by going through all the arguments and rehearsing all the figures that we had at that time. Suffice it to say that the House was seized of the importance of the matter at that time. These clauses will go some way towards helping that process and will provide a very useful range of powers that will enable the GLC or London boroughs to take action to reverse the trend in this matter in certain areas.
A petition has been presented against the promotion of these clauses by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors. The promoters are negotiating with both those bodies to clarify the reasons behind the clauses.
There can be no doubt that action is required urgently. These clauses relate only to commercial and industrial premises and will, therefore, make a substantial contribution to overcoming the serious problem of industrial decline in London.
Clause 11 is designed to give the GLC and the boroughs the powers to acquire securities in firms to which they have made payments or loans. This is a small and modest proposal in the interests of ratepayers. Having given help to retain work and rateable value in London, it is not unreasonable that ratepayers should be able to share in reward for that process. As the House will see, there are adequate safeguards to prevent any take-overs.
Clause 12 gives the GLC and the boroughs the opportunity to publicise commercial and industrial opportunities in London. However, the Government have indicated that they require the removal of the words in line 17 which read,
or establish or maintain office accommodation",
and the promoters have assured me that they are prepared to remove those words. Therefore, in Committee they will be deleted.
Clause 14 is a part of the strategy that is contained in Clauses 8, 9 and 10. This clause will help firms that are able to obtain finance to help their commercial or industrial enterprise but are required to have a guarantor. Obviously, the GLC or the boroughs would be interested in


underwriting those arrangements only if they were of benefit to their areas. Clearly, it would be shameful if it was not possible for these firms to be helped in the way I have described and if we thereby lost the jobs in London.
Clause 15 is promoted for the borough councils to help them in charging for street trading licences. At present it is a very long and painful process. The clause will enable adjustments to be made more easily. I understand that the Home Office is in favour of this change.
Clause 16 will enable the inner London boroughs to have the same powers as the rest of the country in the matter of fines for the non-return of library books. At present they are limited to 2½p a week under the old London County Council (General Powers) Act of 1955. Clause 16 will put that right.
Clause 17 is designed to enable the use of a park for wider entertainment. To do this the boroughs need to have the power to close their parks on a Sunday for any particular occasion. One thinks of an annual borough show, or other events of that nature that take time to prepare and time to remove. Safeguards remain on the number of occasions that the park may be closed. I am advised that some amendments may be needed to ensure that there is no conflict with any charitable trusts.
I have tried to introduce the Bill in a way that is of help to the House. I have indicated that the promoters are willing to negotiate and discuss with any persons any points that they have to make. I am confident that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: We come to the annual ritual of the GLC (General Powers) Bill. It has been presented in a skilful manner. At this stage it has been presented in a calm manner by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). The hon. Gentleman has gone through the recital in a helpful fashion. I am sure that the House is grateful to him for what he has said. At a later stage it may be necessary to outline some of the things that he did not say.
On Second Reading I shall make one or two general comments. The Bill comes to the House on the second occasion. That is because on the previous occasion the Government were unable to keep the House. It was adjourned and everyone went home, presumably rolling up his speech in preparation for the next occasion. The GLC did not bother to send us a new brief for this occasion. Perhaps things did not change in the intervening period. Perhaps there was no progress in the negotiations with the theatre managers or the Booking Offices Association. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch for saying that he will ascertain whether there is anything further that he can add on that aspect.
Like other local authorities, the Greater London Council has to come to the House for an extension of its powers. The House is going through a justified revolt by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who has St. Marks Hospital very much at heart. Private Bills introduced by local authorities are being blocked for very good reasons by the hon. Gentleman as a lesson to the Government. The trouble is that local government itself is having to wait for some of the less objectionable Bills until such time as the hon. Gentleman's objections are cleared. I think that he promised the House that if certain beds were restored by a certain date, he would block for only so many weeks. The time-scale is gradually extending and I am not sure where we are getting.
I wonder whether the time has come when the House should consider examining a local government Bill such as the GLC Bill to decide whether it can continue to present it in the same way. Perhaps the time has come to divide the powers that are sought into two parts, and perhaps even into two Bills. One part should contain those measures which, in relation to Greater London, have commanded the unanimous support of both parties on the GLC and the London Boroughs Association. That Bill, or that part, could perhaps be discussed on Second Reading, Parliament then taking a self-denying ordinance so as not to obstruct a Bill's passage to Committee and beyond. I doubt whether many hon. Members on either side of the House would disagree with that line of thought.
If there is unanimity in the political bodies that compose the local authorities promoting the Bill, it would seem that the House should not intervene in any way that will obstruct the work except where clearly the legislation runs counter to some previous legislation that the House has passed. For example, in the case of the power to advertise, the Government seek certain amendments for what I am sure are good and valid reasons, as the Minister will explain to us at a later stage.
The second part of the Bill would contain the political proposals. I do not believe that anyone who has read the Bill, as opposed to those who have listened to the sponsor's explanation, would feel that the Bill is a non-political measure. It contains a substantial number of highly objectionable political proposals. That applies to this Bill, and I am sure that it will apply to any Bill that might be presented next Session by a Conservative controlled GLC. I am sure that when the position is reversed there will be Labour Members objecting violently to certain proposals. That is their right, as it is our right when there are political proposals coming from the present administration at County Hall.
I am trying to suggest to the powers that be that perhaps we should try to assist local government by removing from the political arena the humdrum but necessary changes in the law that local government seeks with unanimity to get approved by the House. The political proposals clearly would need closer scrutiny before being supported or deleted. It is not unknown for such political powers to be deleted by the House.
I expect that there will be a different administration across the road in a couple of week's time. Whatever the House may decide to do on Second Reading, the promoters will clearly have to expect different instructions when the Bill reaches Committee. It may be that certain clauses will be withdrawn at that stage. I am sure that no time would be lost in a reappraisal being made of the powers now sought by the GLC.
I want to draw a distinction between the two types of legislative proposal. I hazard the guess that most Labour Members who have served in local government would not greatly dissent from what

I have said in seeking to find a way of promoting non-contentious measures in a way that does not necessarily mean the baby being thrown out when we get rid of the bath water. We need to think about that perhaps more carefully than any of us has thought about it over the past few years.
The GLC Bills that were sponsored from the Government Benches when there was a different Government in power had to run exactly the same gauntlet, but anyone looking objectively at the contents of those Bills, as at this Bill, would be able to find some measures with which it would be impossible to disagree, even to the substitution of a comma for a full stop.
One of the matters that disturbs me in the Bill now before us is transportation, which is covered by further and better provision for the financing of local government services in Greater London. What worries me is at this stage, when we are nine days away from an election, the Greater London Labour Party issues in a hypocritical fashion a document that is based upon terminological inexactitude. That expression can be translated outside the Chamber into the more common word. It is said, quite falsely, that a Conservative administration would with draw the free travel concessions at present enjoyed by the elderly. Any party that descends to that level must be scraping the barrel to maintain its hold at County Hall. I bitterly regret that that has happened.
I return to the Bill. We are delighted that on this occasion we have the company of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), representing the Liberal Party, representation that we have not always enjoyed. As the Bill contains measures for the extension of direct labour, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will advise his colleagues that they should stick to the point of view expressed when his party made its deal to sustain the Government, when one condition was that the direct labour Bill would not go ahead. I presume that the Government cannot count on the Liberals' support for those parts of the Bill that seek to extend direct labour, but time will tell.
The Bill falls into two parts. I shall deal first with the non-contentious parts, the small and uncontroversial pieces of


legislation proposed early in the Bill. I look first at Clauses 3, 4 and 5, the provisions specifically sought by the GLC for better control over the licensing of public entertainment. It was in relation to Clause 5 that discussions were to take place with the theatre booking organisations. The three clauses seek to tighten up the law on strip clubs and to control much more closely the so-called booking offices. Many of us who walk through London know exactly what the booking offices do. They are the cause of gross overcrowding, which could be extremely dangerous. They make it extremely difficult for the council to deal with some of the abuses if renewal of the licence is sought. That is why the power sought by the GLC is valuable and should be supported.
Booking offices also sell tickets for a show that people then find is being held elsewhere. It is rather like people being asked to vote Liberal and then finding that they are supporting the Labour Government. That is the closest analogy that I can think of.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman talked earlier about a terminological inexactitude. Would he care to rephrase what he has just said? He will have seen the statement of what was agreed between Labour and the Liberal Party.

Mr. Finsberg: The basic point is that those who voted Liberal now find that they are keeping the Government in power, which I suggest is exactly the same thing.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 fall into the first category of non-contentious matters about which no one would be particularly unhappy.
We come next to Clause 6,
Power to lease land for purposes of reservoir, etc.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch explained the power very carefully. I assume that there is no significance in the fact that the land is in the Borough of Greenwich and is coloured pink on the signed plan. I think that the clause is reasonable.
Clause 7 concerns admission charges for exhibitions at Kenwood House. As

a Friend of Kenwood and someone whose constituency abuts Kenwood, I see no objection to the proposal, which is to require payment in respect of any temporary exhibition. The Iveagh Bequest was quite clear that there could be charges on two days a week. What is now sought is power to charge on any day including Sunday, for admission to a temporary exhibition.
I remember the phoney hoo-ha when the last Conservative GLC made proposals for introducing charges at Kenwood. Many things which were in the election manifesto of the party elected to control of the GLC last time, such as free bus fares are all gone. Now there is a proposal to charge for exhibitions. We on the Opposition Benches see no objection to the clause. I think that it is a recognition that the public are prepared to pay for something that is good. The quality of exhibitions at Kenwood is extremely high, and I hope that extra publicity will be coupled with charging and will lead even more people to go to Kenwood.
Continuing with the non-controversial clauses, I come next to Clause 13:
Evidence of delegated, etc., decisions of officers
Local government is increasingly under pressure from all sides, and it is not possible for every decision to be voted on by elected councillors, although I hope that any decision taken under delegated powers is at least scrutinised by the chairman of the committee concerned in a book and that the chairman knows exactly what is being done in his name. I note that the powers are sought on behalf of the GLC and all the London boroughs. I have slightly more confidence in the London boroughs than in the GLC, because the decisions taken over the corrupt housing associations which we saw on television—Longfellow Road, Second Genesis and Novo—some of those decisions presumably delegated by the GLC members do not give much cause for confidence that many members of the GLC bother to scrutinise decisions taken in their name. Here we are asked that officers may present certificates purporting to be signed by them as evidence in any proceedings. I see no objection, with the proviso that the elected members


keep a check on such matters. No elected members can read every document, but there is a special responsibility on a chairman to make certain that everything being done in his name on behalf of the authority is at least scrutinised by an elected member.
Clause 15, which relates purely to London borough councils, tries to tidy up the whole vexed question of charges to the holders of street trading licences. I welcome the clause, because it should save a great deal of council manpower and prevent a great deal of aggravation to street traders, who will at least know that they have a much tidier system, but I should have been unhappy if there had been no right of objection. I understand that the right will continue, and on that understanding I see no reason to object to the clause.
Clause 16 merely gives to inner London the power to charge higher library fines. This is an important power. Some local authorities thought that we were living in such a Utopian age that they could do away with fines. As a result, they found that the number of books out on loan long beyond the requisite period was increasing. Most of the local authorities that declared fine-free library services are now returning to a fining library service. The clause will at least put inner London on the same basis as outer London.
Clause 17 seeks to change the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890, which deals with the closing of parks. At present it is possible under that Act and under the 1961 Public Health Act to close certain parks or their grounds on any one occasion for up to six consecutive days, excluding Sundays.
A change is being sought so that parks can be closed on Sundays within that particular period. One or two of my hon. Friends are unhappy about this, but I am advised that so far there have been no objections from users of parks—although it may be that they are not aware of the proposal. Provided there are not objections from the regular park users I would have thought that this power could be granted relatively safely on the understanding that the House was saying to the promoters of the Bill that if complaints are made subsequently the House may require the authority to

reinstate the safeguard for Sundays. On that basis it is reasonably safe. That covers Clause 17 which deals with parks and closing powers.
I now come to the rest of the Bill. Many of the provisions in Part III of the Bill are irrelevant, harmful or otiose. I have a feeling that the Minister may tell us later that some of the powers that are being sought are not needed, but in case he does not, I propose to explain why we object to a few of the clauses in Part III.
First of all, as a matter of principle, London's economic problems and her industrial weaknesses are the result of misdirected interventionism. The path to unemployment was paved by the planners' good intentions. We have heard on several occasions, when we have been discussing the decline of the inner city and the virtual doubling of unemployment in Greater London since the Labour Party controlled the GLC, the pungent—and that is the kindest adjective—comments of the former Government Chief Whip who lays about his own colleagues when he hears some of the things that they are continuing to do to Inner London.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Although the hon. Gentleman has now reached the politically controversial part of the Bill, would he not agree that the 1968 London Plan, which was produced at a time when the Tories were in the majority at County Hall and when I was a member of the Planning Committee, made it clear that GLC policy was to remove from London those enterprises, organisations and commercial premises that did not have some relation to the capital function of London? That might have been right or wrong, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was then not only a planning lacuna but possibly a political one as well, and in past years this has not necessarily been attributable to one political party?

Mr. Finsberg: I was talking about the the last period of four years. It was during the 1968 period that the Tory GLC endorsed the ringway motorbox plan first perpetrated by the Labour LCC and then a Labour GLC. I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to forget that the evil godfather of the ring-ways was the London Labour Party.
As for the point about moving offices and factories out of London, certainly this was the view taken in 1968. It was, in hindsight, a wrong view but three years ago my colleagues at County Hall pointed to the errors. It was then possible to have a debate discussing the changes in square footage limits on industrial development certificates and to persuade the then Minister of State for Trade that anything should be done. The facts speak for themselves. There was an unholy alliance between the hon. Gentleman who sponsored tonight's Bill and myself to force something through against the wishes of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who then spoke for the Government. That was three years ago.
I repeat that the doubling of unemployment in London has happened during the term of office of a Labour GLC. Experience of London proves that, although the blame lies with both parties from 1968 for planning to kill industry, it took somewhat longer for the Labour Party to learn that fact. It is wonderful what polling day does to concentrate the minds of Labour Party members.
There is no evidence that planners can generate industrial development. They can stifle or kill it but there is no evidence from anywhere in the world that they can create it. I look forward to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) telling me where the direct action of planners stimulates profitable industry and provides new jobs.

Mr. Spearing: New towns.

Mr. Finsberg: It is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, extremely difficult for those who want new jobs and houses in new towns to find exactly what they want because the scale and economics of moving to new towns has, in some cases, made it impossible for companies to continue. The new towns, conceived as they were in the late 1940s, have not turned out to be right and the present Secretary of State is reversing plans.
It is clear that small business, on whose being London so much depends, cannot possibly be assisted by central Government. Our present Government and the GLC have succeeded—by ruinous taxation, high rates, bureaucratic impositions and planning controls and, above all, by

creating a climate hostile to enterprise and in which the notion of incentive is derided—in making life extremely difficult for small businesses and business men.
Some of the provisions in the Bill are a back-door method of direct labour. In particular, Clause 8 would permit the GLC to undertake extensive direct labour building operations. In addition, under this clause, the trading powers granted to the GLC would involve the Council in an area of considerable commercial risk and bring it into competition with other free enterprise builders and contractors who risk their own capital rather than squandering the exactions that have been rapaciously and indiscriminately taken from the ratepayers.
There is nothing in the Bill requiring a separate account of all transactions carried out under the new power. I had discussions with the GLC about the sort of accounts that the Council would have and about the self-financing. Although I have had some satisfaction from the GLC—which is well served by highly competent officers—the information was received by me on 22nd March, and I was told that in the time available it was not possible to canvass the views of London borough councils on the self-financing aspects of these clauses. Alas, I still do not know the views of the London boroughs. One faces the problem that their spokesmen are not in a position to say whether they would be able to accept all the necessary restrictions in order to obtain proper accounting procedures.
These clauses are not good. They do not require a local authority to make a proper economic charge for any work proposed. An economic charge would obviously be related to a proper allocation of costs and overheads and to proper expenses both of the local authority concerned and of its direct labour department.
In fairness, the Government may agree that the GLC is trying to get for London some of the direct labour arrangements that the Government have not been prepared to put to the House for the rest of the country, but this is compounded by the fact that among the ratepayers who would have to meet the liabilities of such direct labour operations are the contractors whose own businesses would be undermined by them.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My hon. Friend referred to the talks that he has had with various bodies, including the GLC. It is curious that we have no idea of the staffing implications or how much money is likely to be at stake. Did he glean anything about these two vital areas in his discussions?

Mr. Finsberg: No, I confess that I did not. I did not probe deeply, because I had a sixth sense that it might be academic after 5th May concerning the GLC.
These clauses, which purport—I use the word very strongly—to help London's industry, would have the effect of undermining the construction industry. That is the first ground on which I think these clauses are bad. Closer examination shows that the powers are not needed. I shall go through this clause and explain why I do not believe that the powers are needed.
Clause 8 concerns power to carry out works for the construction, extension or improvement of an industrial building and for the preparation or improvement of the site. There is an approximately comparable power given to the Secretary of State in Section 5 of the Local Employment Act 1972, but it is available only in development or intermediate areas. However, we get so many rapid changes, as a realisation is built up that Inner London is rapidly becoming a depressed area, that the Secretary of State may say that London ought to have these powers if it needs them under the Local Employment Act 1972. First, as at present constituted under that Act, the Secretary of State would have to specify by order the relevant part of London as such an area before the power could be used.
In addition, and in sharp contrast to the fairly specific power in the 1972 Act, there are almost unlimited powers for the National Enterprise Board, under the Industry Act 1975, to develop and assist the economy of, and to provide and maintain productive employment in, any part of the United Kingdom. The tools available to the NEB to achieve these ends include a power comparable to that in Clause 8 to carry out works.
Of course, there are statutory financial limits on the NEB's powers. The NEB would have to act in accordance with any formal directions given by the Secretary

of State under the 1975 Act. However, there is power under both the Local Employment Act 1972 and the Industry Act 1975. Therefore, this clause is not needed. My views on the Industry Act 1975 are a different matter, but, so long as it is unrepealed, the power exists and would be available, I am advised, for operation by both the GLC and the London boroughs.
I turn now to the power to carry out works for the provision, extension or improvement of facilities, supplies or services relating to an industrial building. It is arguable that the wide-ranging powers of the NEB under the Industry Act 1975 would cover that aspect, subject to the earlier restrictions which I mentioned.
I come next to the power to make grants towards the cost of the works and the provision of facilities, supplies or services.
The Secretary of State has power under the Industry Act 1972 to make capital grants—limited usually, but not exclusively, to 20 per cent. of the cost—towards the provision of buildings and of works connected therewith, but that power is available only in development or intermediate areas, and it is couched in less wide terms than the Clause 8 power being sought by the GLC. I am advised that it is doubtful whether the NEB has power to make grants comparable to those in Clause 8 to the GLC. However, the GLC has told me that it must be conceded that the board's powers are so widely drawn that the point is arguable.
Does the Minister believe, or is he advised, that the powers under the Industry Act 1972 or the Industry Act 1975 will give him authority to give permission for the work that is sought in Clause 8?
I come now to the power to make grants towards the provision of plant, machinery or equipment to be installed in an industrial building. The powers of the Secretary of State and of the NEB in this connection are similar to those outlined earlier.
Regarding the power to erect industrial buildings, it seems that there is comparable power under Section 5 of the Local Employment Act 1972, but it is available only in areas specified as development or intermediate areas. It is


clear that the NEB has such a power, available in any part of the United Kingdom, subject only to the restrictions to which I referred earlier. Therefore, all the powers sought in Clause 8 arguably already exist in one statute, if not two statutes.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what he has been reading from was sent to him on 22nd March by the promoters indicating the broad background? It should be made clear that the promoters have tried in every way to satisfy the background to these clauses.

Mr. Finsberg: Indeed. I was eventually going to say that a copy had been sent to the hon. Gentleman so that he was well aware of it. However, he made no reference to it at all. The House is entitled to know what the promoters are saying. As I shall show later, it is a pity that the promoters did not find it possible in their latest statement, which reached us a couple of days ago, at least to mention to the generality of London Members that many of these powers might already exist. So much for Clause 8.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I find it curious that the hon. Gentleman is resting on what he believes, although not conclusive, the powers of the NEB may be. The hon. Gentleman, who feels confident that the Conservative Party is poised to take control of the GLC, does not want these powers to be in the hands of the GLC, but is content to leave them with the State. I find that a curious line of Tory argument.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard one of my earlier remarks. Part III is headed
Provisions relating to the Council and to borough councils, etc.
Alas, it will not be possible to sweep from office all Labour-controlled London borough councils in May. I do not want them to have these powers, whatever may happen at County Hall. I should be happier for this place to retain control over the Secretary of State when he tries to do anything under the National Enterprise Board's powers—at least until it is possible to take control of the London boroughs. To that extent, it is not right

or necessary to have a duplication of powers.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Gentleman said that these powers were not needed because the NEB has them. Is he arguing that they can be exercised by the NEB on its own or that they could somehow be exercised by the GLC in the name of the NEB? I am not clear about what he was saying.

Mr. Finsberg: The Bill seeks to allow the GLC or say the London Borough of Wandsworth to exercise these powers. I am saying that powers already exist for these operations to be done under the Local Employment Act 1972 or the Industry Act 1975 by the NEB. I should anticipate that where powers were specifically needed, either county-wide or in a particular borough, the county or borough would make representations to the Secretary of State or to the NEB and the powers would then operate. That is how I visualise them and that is what I have tried to explain.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that these powers are possessed now under the Industry Act not by the local authorities but merely by the NEB?

Mr. Finsberg: I am saying that as Parliament has granted these powers there is therefore no need for a subsidiary body to have power for itself. That is what I am trying to say. Frankly, I do not trust the ability of some of these bodies to carry out this work. The Bill is promoted by a present Labour-controlled authority. I do not trust its ability, particularly after Longfellow Road and some of the other scandals that we have seen.
I come to Clause 9 which provides power to make loans for the acquisition of land for the provision, extension or improvement of industrial buildings. There is power under Section 8 of the 1972 Industry Act to make loans to industrialists, but only where this would be likely to benefit any part of the United Kingdom and where it is in the national interest that it should be done. These loans, which the NEB can make subject to the earlier restrictions, are not bound to be subject to the strict limitations imposed by Clause 9. Clause 9(1) and (2) specifically refer to the 1963 Local Authorities (Land) Act and to the land


on which an industrial building is or is intended to be provided, extended or improved. That is perfectly true. But the powers exist concurrently and so long as they exist I do not believe there is the need for further powers to be taken by a subsidiary body.
We then come to Clause 10 which contains the power to guarantee the payment of rents or other sums payable in respect of an industrial building.

Mr. Spearing: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Clause 9, can he be a little more explicit? He said he does not think that the GLC or the borough councils should have these powers of advancing loans because they already exist with the NEB. But surely the whole purpose is to enable local requirements, which are known only by the local councils, to provide an extension of employment particularly with regard to ancient buildings. Whatever the powers available, it would be quite improper for the NEB to become involved in this relatively small-scale, but nevertheless significant, retention of employment.

Mr. Finsberg: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in more detail somewhat later. What I am seeking to say is that there is no need for these powers to be exercised either by the local authorities or by the NEB, but, rather, by commercial enterprise which believe is far more efficient than local authorities. If they catch the eye of the Chair, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will be talking about how successful the local authorities are when they dabble in things about which they know virtually nothing. I wish to deal with Clause 10—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the powers to make loans for the construction, extension and improvement of industrial buildings, which Clause 9 will give to the GLC and the London boroughs, will to a large extent stand the Government's regional policy, such as if is, on its head? It will give to the London boroughs and the GLC the power which only the Secretary of State has to make grants to intermediate or development areas. Indeed, the powers of the Secretary of State to make such loans in regional development and assisted areas is limited to only 20 per cent. whereas the GLC

and the London boroughs will have powers to make loans above 20 per cent. for virtually any project they want. This is the sort of Bill which shows up the enormous anomalies which exist and which turns upside down the Government's regional policy.

Mr. Finsberg: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Perhaps the only safeguard would be the sum that eventually has to be inserted in the GLC Money Bill. But we know that is not always a very successful safeguard. Frankly, this Bill, as I read it, is saying to the Government that those who still control the GLC have absolutely no confidence in their ability to do anything and that they wish to go ahead themselves. The trouble is that I have even less confidence in their ability than I have in the Government's and that is saying a mouthful.
But it is quite clear that the NEB and the Secretary of State have in certain circumstances got the powers that are contained in Clause 10. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify—he is after all the only person who can—why the GLC should have powers, many of which already exist.
A similar clause was put forward in the 1973–74 GLC General Powers Bill but that clause fell at Beecher's Brook, if I might use that term, because the then Departments of the Environment and Industry reported adversely to the Unopposed Bills Committee. I think that judgment was right. They were obviously operating in the knowledge not of the 1975 Industry Act, because it was not on the statute book, but of the 1972 Local Employment Act. Presumably, because of their detailed knowledge of the powers available in the situation as it was then, the Departments advised, and the Unopposed Bills Committee accepted the advice, that the clause should be deleted.
That judgment was right. I accept it just as I accept that the best approach to the problem of dying industries and job creation is for the Government and local authorities to remove their obstruction and let enterprise operate.
I do not think anyone will argue against the proposition that profitable companies provide more jobs. They provide more jobs because they can invest and remain competitive. They can win


more orders at home and abroad. They can extend production and develop projects. I repeat that profitable companies provide more jobs. They do so because they increase—[Interruption.] I fear that with some Labour politicians it is only after the fifth repetition that it begins to sink in. It was only after the 11th Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer began to realise that he could not go on crippling the middle class and the skilled working class. That is why they turned against his party at Stechford and that is why they will do so at almost every local election next week.

Mr. John Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman has been saying that profitable companies provide jobs. But I can remember an experience in Woolwich in 1968 when the extremely profitable GLC decided to close down the AEI plant and move the operations elsewhere. That was an extremely profitable company but it did not provide jobs in London.

Mr. Finsberg: Without understanding in detail all that went on then because, first, I was not in the House and, second, I was not on the board of either company, the fact is that, as I understand it, had that amalgamation not taken place, more jobs would have been lost than were actually lost on that occasion. It is no good expecting every single factory to go on providing every single job when we are taxing them out of existence by carrying out the present policies, which have been enforced for so long. By reducing the rate base in London we are driving industry outside for pure self-preservation on financial grounds.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend ignores another factor which is that it has been the policy of the Government to export jobs from London for a number of years to other parts of the United Kingdom. That is what was done in this case. The new plant was closed in order to protect jobs in other parts of England. Half the trouble has been that London is having its jobs exported.

Mr. Finsberg: I agree. This is why I hope that we have seen the last of the present activities of the Location of Offices Bureau, which has done crippling damage to London. I am glad that the

Secretary of State has said that he is examining the rôle and function of the Bureau. That examination is overdue, but it is at least a recognition, and a welcome one, of the harm that the Bureau is doing.
As I was saying, profitable companies provide more jobs. They increase the national wealth, so that the taxpayer needs a smaller share to maintain his revenue, which means higher real wages. At last, by his conditional offer of a 33 per cent. instead of a 35 per cent. tax rate, even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is beginning to realise that lower taxation may be a good thing. Would that he had listened to us earlier. We do not regret that he has learned the lesson. The trouble is that his school report shows him to be a slow learner. More incentives provide more spending power with which to buy the goods produced by these companies, and so the circle goes on. What local authority involvement in industry will not do is provide more profitable jobs. That should be self-evident.
It is a pity the GLC should seek these powers at a time when the Department of the Environment has, of its own free will, sought the advice of the British Property Federation as to what relaxation of planning restrictions is necessary in order to encourage property developers to build factories on speculation—not with public money but with their own—in order that there should be no delays due to the non-availability of factory accommodation when there is an upturn in the economy. That action by the Department shows that planning does not help but restricts.
If local authorities, as they seem to want to do by this Bill, enter this area of activity, they may well create an oversupply of industrial buildings or a supply not related to demand in a particular area. Not only would they be in competition with the private developers they could well be in competition with neighbouring authorities. But in addition, if a private developer wished to respond to the Government's desire for speculative factory building, he would have to get planning consent from an authority which might be in direct competition. How does the Minister reconcile his Department's approach to the British Property Federation with the


attitude of the promoters of the Bill, who seek, apparently, to do exactly the opposite of what the Secretary of State would like to see?
Finally, I come to the one clause in the Bill that I would be sorry to lose. But if the GLC must cocoon Clause 12 in a mass and mess of politically-motivated clauses, it is upon its own head. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said that the Government had already demanded certain amendments to Clause 12, which is perhaps indicative that it is not as happy a provision as it might be. I think that all of us believe that London wants the removal of the restriction on advertising which has been with us for a very long time, but if it is necessary—and I do not disagree that it is—surely a one-clause Government Bill, or a clause in a local government miscellaneous provisions Bill, could do the job. Clause 12 provides that the Secretary of State not "shall" but "may", and in any case his authorisation would be needed, and that authorisation would be subject to such limitations or conditions that he thought fit.
With all that hedging around it, it seems much more logical that, if the Government share our view that London should not have this restriction on advertising left on it, they should introduce a suitable measure themselves. There is little of substance going through the House now, so they could probably beg enough time from the Leader of the House for a one-clause Bill which I could almost guarantee that we would happily facilitate as quickly as the Government wished. That is a generous offer on our part that the Government might be prepared to take up.
When we consider Part III of the Bill, let us tear away Salome's veil. The Salome one might meet in the booking office under the provisions of Part II might not be so revealing as I hope to be about the Salome of the creation of a national enterprise board for London. It is academic, however, in this case, because the GLC will not be willing to operate such a provision in 10 days' time. Part III would provide a limitation in the case of the GLC—that would be in the money Bill. But other authorities could merely go for loan sanction, and this House would have no real control. We are being asked to help create a London national enterprise

board, and I want no part in it. I do not think that it is necessary, nor do I believe that the public would think it necessary It is clear, whether one reads the Morning Star, the Tribune or the Spectator, or any other journal—

Mr. George Cunningham: And Le Figaro?

Mr. Finsberg: No. Le Figaro is not being quoted, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that, with the large and valuable French and Italian communities in London, consideration might be given to the re-opening of the closed beds at St. Mark's Hospital, on which I support him.
As I was saying, it is clear that the Labour GLC is on its last legs. It is trying desperately, by a ruthless campaign of terminological inexactitudes and of smears, to avoid electoral humiliation. That it should be promoting a measure worthy of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in February 1974 seems wholly appropriate as its last act. However "Bennery" is in full retreat and is no longer a viable proposition, as the promoters of the Bill will find out in a week's time. The economic strategy which underlies these clauses is wrong. We repudiate this type of interventionism.
I have tried to outline an alternative—that private industry can do all that is asked and all that is needed. At the same time it will provide more jobs, more rapidly than any extra-bureaucratic setup. We do not know how many extra jobs will be created at County Hall and town hall to run the services but they will not be productive jobs. I want to see private industry creating productive jobs so that people can earn a good living and have more money to spend. In that way more goods will be produced and sold. That is in sharp contrast to the provisions of the Bill.
Industry can fend for itself if the Government gets off its back. If the House should decide to give the Bill a Second Reading, I hope that when it gets to the Committee that examines unopposed Bills these clauses will be struck out by the Instruction which I trust the House will approve. In any case I am reasonably confident that the clauses will be withdrawn by the promoters after 5th May, when and if it reaches the Committee.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and I disagreed earlier about the rôles of planners and politicians in London. Neither planners nor politicians of either party are infallible. Both have been found fallible about planning in London. The big difference has been that, whereas my colleagues who are politicians in London saw the warning signs of the retreat of industry as early as may be and took steps to deal with it, Conservative politicians pressed forward with their policy on motorways. The electors knocked the motorways policy on its head in 1973. We can agree that both parties have been wrong some time about some issues, but it was the electorate who knocked the Conservatives on the head about motorways.
The hon. Member also discussed whether planners can generate new industry. They cannot generate new industry in its basic and fundamental sense, because that is a function of technology and industrial enterprise. We can agree that from 1947 onwards the new towns policy has been right and has had bipartisan support. Those of us who support good planning agree that the British new town made a planning contribution to the world. It is interesting that President Carter is to go to Washington New Town in Durham when he visits this country. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead did not acknowledge that.
New industry, new employment and its generation on a basic and substantial scale are a different topic. Politicians on both sides overlook that new investment for industry, wherever it comes from—from Arnold Weinstock operating in Woolwich, or in Newcastle, as he is today—means fewer jobs. That is a problem that must be faced by multinational companies in private enterprise and by the British Steel Corporation and other publicly owned concerns. It is a growing national problem that is too often overlooked by both parties.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not want to detract from what the hon. Member said about British new towns, but he should not wax unduly lyrical over them. Has the hon. Member lived in or represented a new town? I have done both and I see glaring faults in them.

Mr. Spearing: I agree that there are faults in new towns. Far be it from me to say that the programme should be continued. All I say is that it is generally recognised throughout the world that the new town development movement in this country—and I am referring not to Milton Keynes, which is a new and unwanted city from my point of view, but to the first and perhaps the second generation new towns—has more advantages than disadvantages.
In expressing my support for the Bill I refer especially to Clause 12 relating to the advertising of industrial opportunities. The hon. Member for Hampstead said that it should not be in this Bill. He felt that it should be in a different Bill. He was not against the clause. He said it should be in a simple, one-clause Bill. I did not follow the logic of that. We all agree that we want less legislation. I sit on the so-called "big" Procedure Committee. Everyone says that we want fewer Bills. I should have thought that this was an opportunity of which advantage might be taken.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I said that if, by burying this good clause under a mess of political rubbish, the whole proposal was lost, the GLC had only itself to blame and that, given those circumstances as there was general agreement that the clause was a good one, the Government should use some of their surplus time on a one-clause Bill.

Mr. Spearing: Then it appears that the hon. Gentleman takes exception not to the clause but to the part of the Bill in which it is placed. But, unless I am mistaken, I should have thought that when the Bill went to Committee, the Committee would be asked to strike out the clause, and the fact that it happened to be in a certain part of the Bill was relatively arbitrary and did not necessarily prejudice its continued existence in the Bill. I should have thought, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman's argument did not stand on those grounds.
I return to Clause 12, relating to the powers of the London boroughs and the GLC to advertise their industrial advantages. As the newly elected Member of Parliament for Newham, South, one of the first meetings that I attended was about the running down of our dockland. Half of dockland is in my constituency.


On that occasion, as I approached the town hall I was passed by a London Transport bus—ultimately a responsibility of the GLC—which bore a great banner on its side reading "Come to Peterlee". At the meeting I said that we had to go to Peter Shore to get this changed. I appreciated that perhaps that would not go down very well in Peterlee, but we went to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and we got a change, at least in terms of a Government review of industry in London.
I did not blame Peterlee for its campaign, but I felt that to have these banners plastered all over London buses when industry in London was running down so badly was a revealing example of how much advertising was going on at the time of all the industrial development areas. I do not say that this power should be used to prejudice them—London has to be careful in the way that it goes about this—but it shows what atmosphere can be created.
When it is available, information to potential employers of labour provides a climate of expectation. If that information is virtually absent and is not coming gratuitously from the GLC and the boroughs and they can respond only to specific inquiries, obviously that adds to the general atmosphere in those circles, as did the widely held view that IDCs were not available in London. We all know that long story, and I hope that by now we have got over this problem. We know the atmosphere which was created.
I hope that this provision can be used with precision and without prejudice to the development areas, although it may prejudice the development of the 11 areas in South-East England to which I drew attention only the other day. They are still designated by the Department of the Environment, although they are being reviewed. But there are many areas which do not want expansion, and they would far prefer expansion to take place in areas such as dockland.
Why do I say that this information need not be prejudicial? A great deal depends on the way in which it is presented. It should not be in great banner headlines on the sides of London buses inviting people to come to wherever it may be. That is probably not the way

in which the permission should be used. It should be related to providing information about the provision of particular specialist requirements for which industrialists are looking.
Let me take my constituency as an example. We have excellent facilities for bulk transfer of incoming raw materials from water to either road or rail. These exist very much in the dockland area of East London, with perhaps new uses of the docks for new purposes, not necessarily directly under the auspices of the existing authorities. But the railways and roads are there and the waterways are there—a sort of rail-road-water network. That is available, but the detailed facilities are not easily seen on maps. They have to be centrally co-ordinated and available, listed and published, not necessarily in great display advertisements, but in ways easily available to those looking for specific facilities.
The GLC has already developed this as far as it can. There is a London industrial centre, which provides information when people ask for it. But it cannot, I believe, even advertise itself. It cannot say "Here we are, come and ask us", because at the moment, as I understand the position, the existing statutes do not even permit it to do that. But this will be a change, and it is a welcome change supported, among others, by the London Chamber of Commerce and industry. That should at least appeal to Conservative Members. It
accepts that the present drafting of the Bill may well be designed to take account of the views of other regions
That is why the Secretary of State comes in in relation to general Government strategy. But the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
regards the removal of the restrictions on advertising as of very considerable importance to the future of London, and it would not wish to see the Bill giving these powers fail for other reasons
That is at least a commendation of the principle of Second Reading, although no doubt the London Chamber may have views about other clauses which have been discussed.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman was obviously quoting from the letter from Mr. Senior of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry dated 26th April 1977. I spoke to Mr.


Senior at about 4 p.m. today, and the view of the London Chamber is quite simple. It has welcomed Clause 12 and is unhappy about Clause 11. It expresses no view about any of the other clauses—I am authorised to say this—either for or against.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he reads later what I said, I think he will agree that I did not imply any other views. I rather implied that the Chamber might have other views on the other clauses. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that in certain respects at least.

Mr. Ronald Brown: But since we have been given that information by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), it follows that apparently this very important body did not share his strictures about Clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It was, I think, by implication in what the hon. Member for Hampstead said, although it may be that the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry may indeed, by saying nothing, mean that the Bill should not be dropped. Certainly it is not opposing it. That is something that both the House and Londoners in general might take on board.
I now turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead about the alternative strategy. He objects to these clauses giving Boroughs powers relating to what amounts to municipal enterprise. Municipal enterprise has been with this country for a long time. I also canvassed in Stechford. What was I told? "It is always difficult", they said. "Why?", I asked. "Joe Chamberlain", they said.
Joseph Chamberlain, the great Conservative figure who, I believe, was the brother of a former Conservative Prime Minister, was a municipal entrepreneur. He may not necessarily have approved of these clauses, but at least he approved a whole number of projects and enterprises in the city of Birmingham which, I fancy, many hon. Members would not now support.
Therefore, I suggest that municipal enterprise, responsibly conducted by people accountable to the local electo-

rate —industrialists are not—has certain principles which are not quite so foreign to Opposition Members as they might pretend. In Newham we know all about local enterprise which comes along and makes a profit. The nineteenth century industries have mown through my constituency like a mowing machine through thyme. When they made their profits they moved away. Although they made a lot of profits, they did not create jobs. Rather they took them away because 15,000 to 20,000 jobs have been lost in the last 10 years in my constituency alone.
The point is that successful and perhaps profitable growth industries do not come to the area. That is one of our problems, as it is one of the problems of London generally. I see that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is nodding. One of our problems is that, however we may differ across the Floor of the House about the development of industry and the way private enterprise has or has not a place where it does work, as it may do occasionally, it does not work in the areas that we wish to assist.

Mr. Townsend: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that one reason why industry has not come to his part of London or to the South-East of London is the absence of proper ring roads to allow industry to bring in goods and to take them away again?

Mr. Spearing: We have touched on the question of roads and I mentioned that we had them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that there are certain road improvements that I would oppose and some that I would advocate. Strange as it may seem, I favour the proposals of my own Government, which have been temporarily delayed, for a new road through the Roding Valley, which for one thing would enable a bypass for the East Ham High Street. I suggest that it should be extended southwards to the Woolwich free ferry. That is something that neither the Docklands Joint Committee nor the Department of the Environment has backed or, indeed, for that matter, the Newham Borough Council.
Although I am known—I declare it openly—as being generally an anti-road man, in this respect I would advocate the


building of a small road without intersections. A lot of traffic can travel on a small two-carriageway road without intersections. It can carry a great deal of traffic away from industrial areas, by passing busy High Streets. I have advocated the building of this road and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of saying so. I know that my hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters has heard it.
I turn now to Clause 9, to which the hon. Member for Hampstead took considerable exception. He said that we should leave it to local enterprise and that we did not need local government to provide space for industry to build or to build for industry. He said that we should leave it to the existing entrepreneurial system. I think that that is a summary of what he was saying.
I suggest that the problem of London is not necessarily one which would appeal to conventional entrepreneurs. I understand that one of the problems of industry in London is that even where successful local firms wish to expand, generally speaking the layout of their factories is either nineteenth century or inter-war 1930s, which is unsuitable for today's one-storey, fork-lift truck and quick-change production-line process. Very often, if an industry wishes to expand in situ—and at one time I represented the constituency of Acton, which included the Park Royal industrial estate—it is not economical to do so.
It may be that people will continue to come and be employed in the area, but renovating buildings or pulling them down and providing car parks is less economic there than it would be in the assisted areas or in new towns, or in the sub-suburban fringes around London or on the South Coast in sunny Sussex. Very often pure account book entrepreneurial sums do not work out. I suggest that this is the one way round the problem, although I am not saying that it is the only way.
I had an example in my own constituency just before Easter. I was invited to open the new works of an expanding firm, which is a relatively unusual situation in my constituency. I have to tell the hon. Member for Hampstead that this firm, despite its order book, was not able to get commercial backing from the usual commercial sources for its new premises.

It may be that there was a good reason for this, but I rather doubt it. We shall have to see. I hope that the firm will do very well.
However, the firm was able to get some assistance from the local authority under existing provisions, and it was only the local authority that enabled this extremely virile firm to stay in the area, expand its production and provide more jobs for relatively skilled people, employment that is very badly needed in my constituency. The conventional means of private enterprise and commerce did not enable the firm to do so.
At least I have one example where I can testify that the existing powers are insufficient, and where Clause 9 would help, and would do something that private enterprise has not done and, I suspect, could not do in present circumstances.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that aid was given not under the Local Employment Act 1972, or the Industry Act 1975, but under a third Act? If that is what he is saying, I do not quite understand. If he is not saying that, it makes the need for this clause even less.

Mr. Spearing: In the circumstances in which the firm found itself I agree that it did not use those provisions, but there were other provisions open to it. I cannot quote them because I cannot remember what they were, but I was told by the firm that only the borough council was able to do this. I shall not quote the name of the firm because what I am saying may be slightly inaccurate, but that is what I was told. The ordinary market forces to which the hon. Member for Hampstead is paying allegiance could not do it. We shall have to see how it goes.
Clause 9 would enable even more firms to get off the ground. While both sides of the House want to see new industry in London, we also want to see new enterprises elsewhere in the country, because the future of the country depends on that. I have a feeling, which I think is shared widely in the country, that conventional forms of management, conventional forms of capital and capital provision, and conventional forms of production and design for production will not be adequate for the task.
It was noticeable that the principals of the firm that I mentioned were people who were not able in their previous firms to convince their managements that they had some good ideas and knew what they could do for those firms, so they set up on their own in the classical—or perhaps not so classical—way of entrepreneurs. These people are not usually associated with the entrepreneurial classes.
It may well be that this sort of industrial enterprise will, in the end, be the saving not only of my part of London but of British industry elsewhere. I heartily support the part of the Bill dealing with industry—unlike the hon. Member for Hampstead—and I hope that it gets a Second Reading and comes back to us from Committee intact.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: I put my name to the motion for an Instruction, and I wish strongly to associate myself with the persuasive and crisp speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg).

Mr. Cartwright: Much too short, of course!

Mr. Shelton: I accept that comment. My hon. Friend's speech was too short. I endorse his observation that the Bill will shortly become more or less irrelevant, since within 10 days or so we shall have the elections for the Greater London Council. Perhaps the House would wish to be reminded of the words of Mr. Horace Cutler, the Leader of the Conservative Opposition, that
The present Labour GLC is one of the most incompetent and discredited administrations that has ever been inflicted on a major city.
It is quite possible—indeed, it is probably certain—that the present Labour administration has made the GLC's task in London still harder. Nevertheless, as one who was a member of the Greater London Council for three years in the Conservative heyday of 1966–70, I would say that in many ways what the GLC is trying to do in London is an impossible task, and, whichever administration finds itself in power after the elections in May, I would earnestly ask it to see whether it is possible speedily to change the GLC into what it should be—indeed, into what it was intended to be—that

is, a strategic planning authority for London.
I maintain that the mixture of tasks which the GLC has set itself makes it extremely difficult for the GLC to accomplish any of them well, and I believe that the presence of some 31 or 32 "Abolish the GLC" candidates standing for election on 5th May springs from the dilemma in which the present GLC finds itself.
I have here—no doubt, hon. Members have seen it—a leaflet put out by a Mr. Stutchbury and a Mr. Marlar entitled "Vote Against the GLC". This is the manifesto of the "Abolish the GLC" candidates.

Mr. Russell Kerr: They are "nuts".

Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but they say, for example, that the GLC
has become London's great white elephant, costing this year nearly £2,000 million".
They say that with its
vast stock of over 200,000 houses the GLC is a remote, unsatisfactory landlord
and that
each new house is costing the ratepayer over £1,000 a year over and above any rent received".
Further, under the heading "Transport", they say:
Why should Londoners be expected to subsidise millions of tube and bus trips each year by London's tourists?".
On education, they say:
The ILEA should be abolished … and the Inner London Boroughs should be made education authorities in their own right.
Many people would have some sympathy with those views, although I do not myself share that sympathy. I believe that the GLC has an important rôle and that there must be a strategic planning authority for London, though not one involved, for instance, in the day-to-day management of housing, and not one involved in the day-to-day management of the fire service. The London Boroughs Association could certainly manage the London fire service more than adequately. The same goes for sewerage. I see no reason why all of those services, which are not sensitive politically in any way, should not be managed by, for instance, the London Boroughs Association.
Therefore, the plea that I am making to the new administration of the GLC is that once again it should look at the London Government Act 1963, where the intention was, for instance, for the GLC to phase out its housing management rôle and to return its housing stock to the boroughs. There is no doubt that if one looks at the way the GLC, aided by an excellent staff and by intelligent people, has tried to fulfil this dual rôle, one can see only a record of difficulty, of inefficiency at times, of hardship and of cost for those people who live in London.
I draw the attention of the House to the problems of the housing stock. I am told that the rental income for GLC housing covers only some 30 per cent. of the housing costs. The rest is made up by the Government and by ratepayers. Of the two, the Government contribute more than the ratepayers to the cost of GLC housing in London.
There are some 1,200 squatters in GLC properties in London. Those are unlicensed squatters, quite apart from the number of licensed squatters. I understand that the Labour-controlled GLC is opposed to making squatting a criminal offence in the Bill that is under consideration in the other place. The borough in which my constituency is located. Lambeth, has found considerable difficulty from squatting, and in many cases it has found that squatting has considerably delayed its housing programme. Lambeth cannot be said, at present anyway, to be the most Conservative of boroughs in London, yet its views on squatting are very much opposed to those of the GLC.
Last year there were some 7,000 empty homes owned by the GLC. I remember not so long ago drawing to the attention of the GLC a house in my constituency that had been empty for some time. I had a letter of thanks from the GLC. The GLC said that due to various administrative happenings it had lost that house. It was grateful to me for restoring it, as it were. Indeed, about two months later a family moved in. But the house had been empty for some seven or eight months. If I had not been fortunate enough to be able to draw it to the GLC's attention, I wonder how much longer it would have remained empty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead did not have time to go into

detail on the direct labour situation handled by the GLC. I merely tell the House that I understand that there are some 1,900 people on the payroll of the GLC's direct labour department. Those, of course, are quite apart from all the outside employees that are used on GLC building sites. Whether those are classified exactly as administrative personnel, I do not know. However, I know that the GLC pays the salaries each week and each month of some 1,900 people in its direct labour department, and that it has some £80 million worth of work in hand at present. Some perhaps ill-natured people have even gone so far as to suggest that the GLC has brought forward a great deal of direct labour work in case the Labour Party should lose the elections, so that this work should be committed by the time the elections come.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: What does the hon. Gentleman want to do?

Mr. Shelton: With great pleasure, I shall tell the hon. Gentleman shortly. I tell him straight away that there are at present some 160 construction branch projects that have recently been completed, none of which, I am informed, has final accounts, and that the district auditor is sufficiently concerned that he is looking at a sample of these projects to see the present state of their accounts. The suggestion is that he may have to write off as much as £10 million or £20 million of direct labour work completed but which has not, for one reason or another, been correctly covered in the audit. I am not for one moment suggesting any defalcation. I am saying that financial procedures have proved inadequate for the great volume of work that has been undertaken.

Mr. Russell Kerr: An innuendo is much safer.

Mr. Shelton: I am making no innuendo. What I have described is common knowledge. I understand that it has appeared in the Press. I am saying that the financial controls have not been adequate. This is why the district auditor is carrying out an examination.
What would the Conservatives do about this? If a Conservative administration finds itself in charge in May, I understand that no more direct labour work will be


given until the existing situation is assessed and an adequate accounting procedure is installed to the satisfaction of everyone. I am sure that everyone in the House would go along with that. I am sure that a Conservative administration would examine individual projects. It would assess them, if necessary assessing them in terms of completion dates and costs, and if necessary reallocate them should it appear that the time-scale or cost is out of control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned unemployment in London. I believe that the GLC's strategic rôle could well play a part. Between October 1975 and October 1976 the borough of Lambeth suffered a 44 per cent. increase in unemployment compared with an increase in unemployment of about 18 per cent. one year over the next in the country as a whole. Thank heavens the unemployment figure is not as high as in some other parts of the country, but in October 1975 there were just under 8,000 unemployed in the borough while a year later there were just over 11,000 unemployed.
I am sure that no one will disagree when I say that every unemployed individual regards his unemployment as badly and as seriously as if there were 1,000 unemployed, 100,000 or 200,000. It is a serious and disturbing situation for an inner London borough such as Lambeth, especially as there are about 680 young people among those who are unemployed. Over half of them are school leavers. They had been some five months out of school at the time of the census.
There is a job creation scheme. In fact, there are eight such schemes. They may be regarded with some scepticism as the eight schemes are giving employment to about 80 young people, which is not adequate.
There is also the problem of immigrant unemployment, although the problem is perhaps not quite so great in my constituency. Again, there is unemployment among the young people. In Lambeth immigrants represent about 11 per cent. of the population and about 27 per cent. of those who are unemployed. It is a difficult, concerning and worrying

situation which we all know about, which we are all aware of and which everyone is trying to do something about. I fear that in the long term we must rely on national recovery to solve the problem satisfactorily.
I return to what I said earlier—namely, that I believe that the GLC, because of its inevitable preoccupation, perhaps, with housing management and its preoccupation, perhaps, through ILEA with education, has lost the rôle that it should be fulfilling of strategic planning for the Greater London area. That rôle is not being satisfactorily undertaken. Whatever administration finds itself in office after the election, I very much hope that it will examine this subject and that perhaps for once we in London shall see a satisfactory strategic planning authority.

9.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): It may assist the House if I intervene briefly at this stage to give an indication of the Government's attitude to the proposals, to which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) referred in his speech, which would give local authorities in London additional powers to assist industry. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present, but he will be able to read my remarks later.
The House will be aware from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6th April on the subject of inner cities that the Government take very seriously the problems of inner city areas. We are particularly concerned about the decline of industry in parts of London and other major cities which share these problems. It may help the House if I remind hon. Members of my right hon. Friend's words. He said:
our immediate priority must be to strengthen the economies of these areas. Subject only to priority for regional policy, suitable firms will be encouraged to establish themselves in the inner areas of the major cities. We shall introduce legislation to enhance the powers of local authorities with serious inner area problems to enable them to assist industry and to designate industrial improvement areas. We shall encourage local authorities to give more consideration to the needs of industry, particularly of small firms, in their planning policies".—[Official Report, 6th April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1227–8.]
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Hampstead has returned to the


Chamber, because I was referring particularly to what he said about those clauses referring to assistance to industry. I have quoted my right hon. Friend as saying that the Government saw a rôle for local authorities in assistance to industry.

Mr. Baker: On the question of assistance to industry, may I restate the point I made in an intervention, that under Clauses 8 and 9 the GLC and the London boroughs are given powers to make loans or grants to companies for industrial premises? The powers they are given under the Bill are greater than the Secretary of State has for the assisted and development areas under the Government's general regional policy. Will this be a pattern? Will Liverpool, for example, ask for powers which will be greater than the powers of the Secretary of State?
The point is that the Secretary of State can give grants or loans—grants in most cases—only up to 20 per cent. We are giving the GLC and the London boroughs a virtually unlimited amount to grant. London Members, certainly on the Labour Benches, may think that that is a good thing, but would the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and other Members representing constituencies in the development areas and assisted areas appreciate powers being given specifically to the GLC and London boroughs that far exceed the Secretary of State's powers, even in development areas?
Will this sort of power be the pattern? Are various cities, or the four or five mentioned by the Secretary of State in his statement just before Easter, all to have such powers?

Mr. Barnett: If I were to be facetious, I should say that the hon. Gentleman must not make trouble between my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and other Members on the Labour Benches—indeed, on both sides of the House—over the competing claims of different cities. But, to be serious, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. If we were to give totally unlimited powers to local authorities in different parts of the country to outbid one another with grants that they were to make, powers to leapfrog, we should be entering a very difficult situation. That is

why my right hon. Friend, referring to that very point, said in his statement:
Subject only to priority for regional policy
He made that point with regard to the competing claims of regional policy and the policy on inner city areas. I accept the hon. Gentleman's general point that it would probably be dangerous to allow local authorities to outbid one another in the way he described, and that we cannot do so. I am sorry that I cannot expand on that now, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand the reasons for that. Although the Secretary of State made his statement on 6th April, the White Paper has not yet been published and, until that has happened and it has been debated, we are not in a position to say precisely what is the Government's policy on this matter.
On the general point—and that was really the only point that I was trying to make—we accept that it is possible for local authorities to be positively of assistance to industry in their own areas. The hon. Member for Hampstead gave the impression that he thought the disappearance of industry from London was all the fault of planners. I cannot agree with that. Where local government has perhaps been negative in the past in its influence it is possible for it to be positive, and there are many good examples of this—indeed, the example of new towns has been quoted as a way in which it has been possible for local government and new town corporations to be of positive assistance to industry.

Mr. John Moore: I do not wish to be pedantic, but, as the Minister rightly said, this is a crucial point. Since there is a White Paper under consideration, would it not be wiser—rather than have the Bill go through on Second Reading, which would prejudge the whole basis of Government strategy in the White Paper—temporarily to withdraw the Bill and to wait for the Government's, as opposed to the GLC's, current views on what the policy should be.

Mr. Barnett: It is not for me to answer that question. The hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind—as indeed the House must—on what should be done. The GLC has come forward, as it does every year, requesting certain powers. My


difficulty is that, inevitably, as I have already implied, the Government have certain reservations about some of the powers that the GLC wishes to acquire. I do not propose to set out our views in detail tonight particularly since we have not yet discussed them with the promoters of the Bill. We shall be doing that as soon as possible.

Mr. Heffer: In relation to discussions with the promoters of the Bill, will the Minister give an assurance on this point, which is very important? I want to support the Bill in general principle as I have always believed, even when I was a Minister, despite the fact that I sometimes had to defend policies with which I did not always agree, that there are serious problems in inner London areas that need assistance and that we must agree that such assistance must be given. On the other hand the leap frogging is of great importance. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be discussions so that if the Bill comes back from the Committee for Report stage there will be changes to take that point into consideration?

Mr. Barnett: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be having discussions with the GLC on this point and it may be that we shall be able to reach agreement. In any event, the Secretary of State will, as usual, submit a report to the Committee in due course. These more detailed matters ought to be considered in Committee because they are Committee matters rather than issues with which we should attempt to deal in detail on Second Reading.
Since it appears to be generally agreed that the Bill contains some useful clauses, it should be sent to Committee. I hope that hon. Members will allow the Committee to examine the detailed proposals, unfettered by any Instruction such as that on the Order Paper. The Committee members will, after all, be in a better position than us to examine all the issues with the benefit of expert evidence and to consider whether there is an overlap between the kind of powers for which the GLC asks and those contained in general law.

Mr. John Gorst: Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that any funds made available to commercial

undertakings under Part III would come from either ratepayers or national sources and, if so, how much? Is the Minister happy that the expenditure of funds of this nature should be at the discretion of an authority over whose expenditure the Government have no control?

Mr. Barnett: This is private legislation and I cannot answer that question. Clearly this Bill could not and does not contain any provision for national funds to be spent for whatever purpose the hon. Gentleman may have in mind.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. John Moore: I hope that the House will forgive me if, as a London Member, I touch on one or two of the smaller points which were raised earlier, specifically on Clauses 7 and 17. It would be unfortunate if there were too great a sense of unanimity on these matters.
Clause 7 relates to Kenwood House. I should be distressed, no matter what the arguments, if charges were made for entry to a place which the public have been encouraged to attend for specific exhibitions in the past without charges.
Clause 17 refers to closing parks on Sundays. I deprecate that suggestion. Most people in normal walks of life enjoy spending Sundays in the parks. To attempt to close parks in the London area on Sundays should be greatly deprecated. I should like this matter to be considered in greater detail.
The main thrust of the Bill in a politically contentious sense concerns Clauses 8 to 14. I am especially concerned about Clause 8. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty, but we are addressing ourselves specifically to the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill.
The promoters' memorandum refers to the population decline in London, the unemployment rate and the loss of employment over many years. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that both major parties must accept a great deal of responsibility in the planning sense. The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of the Bill, but his argument on Clause 12 showed his personal dissatisfaction with the offensive attempts by both major parties to plan rather than to create new jobs through private enterprise. The GLC


is saying that the prescription for the problem is further planning powers.

Mr. Spearing: I must correct what the hon. Gentleman said about my views. I was not advocating the superiority of the efforts of private enterprise over planning. I was suggesting that planning had its limits and that both public and private enterprise provided the new industry on which planners either planned well or badly.

Mr. Moore: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, if we had continued the debate on new towns in more detail, we might have talked about job loss on the one hand from London and job creation in the new towns on the other hand.
I want to be brief and so I shall not re-examine the detailed points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) in a necessarily short, curt but simple speech.
I think that we must examine in more detail the basic thesis underlying the GLC's concept regarding planning and the creation of jobs. I have here statistics which might be relevant and of interest to the House. I have recently been looking at comparative statistics on job creation as opposed to job protection. Job protection tends to be the methodology usually followed by local or State authorities. As this Bill is geared towards unemployment and employment prospects, the House might find the figures interesting.
Between 1960 and 1975 the United Kingdom population increased by 3·5 million, or 6·6 per cent. During that same period in the United Kingdom as a whole the working population increased by 1·3 million, or 5·4 per cent.—a smaller percentage than the increase in population. During those same years the population of the United States increased by 32·7 million, or 17·7 per cent., while the working population increased by 22 million, or 30 per cent. Job creation is the production of new jobs by the market through the private enterprise system as opposed to our own attempts, as seen in this measure, which are simply designed to protect decaying industries.
I wish to tackle only one or two issues because I want to be brief. To the extent that the GLC has involved itself in planning within my constituency, it has been directly contra to job creation. The GLC has decided that in the Croydon area there are already an excessive number of office jobs and to that extent it has consistently sought to block them. It has done that so consistently that eventually the Government inspector had to rule that its attempts were illegal in the St. George's site situation. When I look around my constituency, I see that there has been a consistent inability to plan anything other than job destruction rather than job creation on the part of the GLC.
Direct labour is a crucial provision within the whole of Clause 8. I am indebted for some figures that I have received from Councillor Mallam, leader of the opposition on Wands worth Council. The GLC is seeking increased powers to involve itself in direct labour. We should concern ourselves with some detailed facts of what occurs as opposed to what the GLC supposes might occur.
Councillor Mallam looked at the direct labour situation in Wands worth and the figures showed that the accounts were in profit to the tune of £227,000 on a turnover of £5,445,000. It looked reasonable on a surface examination. But Councillor Mallam and the borough architect examined the matter in more detail. They found that the value of an item like "work in progress" was approximately £872,000. The architect's own valuation of that work was only £619,000, a reduction of £253,000.
Again, a section on disputed charges was given in the list as in excess of £1 million, but the architect's own valuation was £574,000, a gap of £435,000. If one goes all the way down that set of accounts one finds that at the end of the day there was a loss of £577,000 on a turnover of £5,445,000 rather than a profit.
When looking at the details and trying to examine how it has occurred the borough architect took two particular properties at random which were constructed under direct labour. He looked at Nos. 6 to 12 Brussels Road where the original estimate was £67,000. Whereas there is a final account of £75,000, the actual cost


was £143,000, double the original estimate. There was a similar example in Cologne Road, but I shall not go into the details.
Our limited knowledge and experience of direct labour within the London area has been such as to lead us to the conclusion that it does two things. Essentially, it creates the destruction of jobs, and the destruction of private enterprise builders. Secondly, not only does it create the destruction of private enterprise building companies but it misallocates resources which are not controllable through the system of direct labour that we currently have.

Mr. Heffer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said about extra costs applies not just to the direct labour department but throughout the construction industry? Example after example can be given of private enterprise where jobs may have started at an estimate of £1 million and ended up at £2½ million or £3 million actual cost. The hon. Gentleman cannot use this argument to attack direct labour. What needs to be done is to analyse what happens in the construction industry. It is a disgraceful industry and it is about time that we dealt with it.

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman's intervention classically proves my point. He is talking of private money. We are talking of the taxpayers' money and we object if it is out of control. Construction companies can go bankrupt, but the State picks up the bill for a local authority or other public institution.
The essence of our case is simple. Instead of seeking to increase its powers, to the detriment of job creation and new enterprise, the GLC should be seeking to decrease its powers, its rates, and the way that it interferes with the production of new jobs.

9.31 p.m.

Mrs. Millie Miller: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who, unfortunately is not present, gave a brilliant analysis of the problems which have created the difficulties in London. He attributed most of them to the Labour Party and to the planning system. He overlooked what is perhaps to him a minor point—the fact that between 1972 and 1974, a period which he may

wish to erase from his mind now, many small businesses in London faced huge increases in rents when they came to renew their leases. That factor drove them out because they were unable to continue in their old premises. In addition, they were often faced with strong competition from bigger companies and were often involved in takeover bids. All these factors gradually pushed smaller businesses out of the London area. The activities of the last Conservative Government were very much involved in the failure of many small companies at that time.
As usual, the hon. Gentleman criticised the activities of the GLC. He conveniently overlooked the parentage of the GLC in the reorganisation that took place in the early 1960s. He forbore to mention that the bureaucracy that the Opposition criticise, and which they claim to be the GLC's monopoly, was created by a Conservative Government in a deliberate political attempt to gain permanent political control of London. That attempt did not succeed. There has been a constant interchange of power between the two parties, which has not helped to create stability in many aspects of London local Government.
The rest of the country, too, has been subjected to some of the spin-off from the unwise decisions taken by that Conservative Government in the early 1960s. Without ever analysing the results of their reorganisation of London government, without assessing the value of the way in which they had created this new structure, the Conservatives set about imposing it on the rest of the country. I predict that it will not be long before many other authorities created by the Conservatives in their last manifestation in office will become vast bureaucratic organisations which the Conservatives will criticise.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The Tories are already claiming that they want to get rid of the bureaucratic counties because they now realise how stupid is the Local Government Act 1972.

Mrs. Miller: I am not surprised. It is a general view throughout the country that the Conservatives have no reason to be proud of their reorganisation of local government any more than of their reorganisation of the National Health Service.
I have it on the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that the discussions and negotiations that he mentioned in connection with Clause 7, relating to the agencies, are going on, and that it is hoped to reach an amicable decision and agreement on their future activities. Again, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Hampstead is not here, as apparently he was interested in the Salome aspect of the work of the agencies.
The most contentious of the proposals which the GLC is putting forward relates to industrial development and the need, which has been stressed little, for the people who live in inner and outer London to work near their homes. I stress to my hon. Friend the needs of people in outer London because, however great the Government's concern for the needs of the inner urban areas, the outer urban areas are inextricably bound up with them and need attention. That need can be met by co-operation between local authorities and private enterprise.
It is pointless for the hon. Member for Hampstead to say that private enterprise can cope with the needs of London or the other major conurbations. Private enterprise has failed to cope. The banks have been bursting at the seams with funds available for industry. But industry has not taken them up because, we are told, of the high interest rates. I shall be interested to see how quickly private enterprise rushes to support new investment now that interest rates have fallen.
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Banking Industries Agency to ask how industrial organisations were reacting to the fact that the banks had so much money available for their use. The Agency said that it was extremely disappointed in the take-up of the funds.
There is a great need for private investment, but there is also a great need in London for co-operation between local authorities and industry.

Mr. Cartwright: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pattern of the South-East London Industrial Consultative Group which was established in the South-East boroughs immediately after the closures in the 1960s and which sought the type of co-operation which she is now seeking between industrialists, trade unionists

and local authorities? That development has been copied in other parts of Greater London. Greenwich has appointed a development officer, which has been welcomed by industry and commerce in the borough. That is contrary to the Opposition view that industry does not want interference. Do we not need that type of co-operation?

Mrs. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is an important example of the partnership between private enterprise and local government.
In my constituency there has been an almost unlikely partnership between the three boroughs of Redbridge, Barking and Havering. They have come together and are seeking the help and support of the Minister for the type of industrial development incentives to which my hon. Friend has just referred. That is an important matter which the Minister must not overlook. In an area such as East London, which is so dependent on the car industry and the ancillary activities of that industry, at a time when there could be a serious recession in some parts of that industry, preparations should be being made by local authorities with industrial organisations to ensure that alternative jobs are available. That is particularly important in an area which traditionally has a good record of skilled industrial work.
The problem of London has been the wholesale export of skilled jobs followed by the wholesale export of skilled workers to other areas where work was available, leaving an imbalance in the type of work force available in the London area. This is one aspect of the joblessness with which authorities are now beginning to concern themselves. In dockland, in the area of South-East London referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) where development is to take place, it will be essential to find ways of bringing back people into London who have already left it so that they may take up some of the skilled work which inevitably will be part of the pattern of development once the opportunity for growth becomes apparent.
Private industry is anxious to get going on a small scale. We should appreciate this. There has been some comment on the views of my hon. Friend the Member


for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who, when Minister of State at the Department of Industry had considerable reservations about increasing the IDC areas in London. It was understandable that he should have had reservations at that time because of the plight of his own depressed area of the country. But in fact the dispute at that time and my hon. Friend's doubts were overcome when he realised the true situation about work in the London area. As Minister, he released London from the bondage of a tight control on industrial development certificates.
But it is not IDC control which prevents development of small industries in London. There are other factors, such as the very high rents to which I have referred. Here, there is the possibility of the powers proposed in the Bill helping substantially with the setting up of new small industries in the London area.
We have heard the view of the hon. Member for Hampstead that the NEB or the provisions in the Local Employment Act may make it unnecessary for these provisions to be introduced. I think that that assumes too much. It assumes that the hon. Gentleman's guess about possible extensions of these powers is correct. I wonder whether he is entitled to assume this. He may be a great expert on the life of London, but I beg leave to doubt whether he is such a great expert on industry in London.
I think that we are entitled to say that the GLC and the London boroughs have been hit by a crisis which has been developing over the past 30 years and that it may be necessary for this House to consider taking extra special powers to help them. Of course, it must not be at the expense of other development areas. Nevertheless, we have to be certain, having already denuded London of so many of is priceless assets in the form of jobs, that we do not destroy completely our capital city or put it into a situation where the only jobs available are in the lower-paid service industries. That would be just as disastrous for the local authorities as it has been already for the smaller industries.
There are many parts of London which require additional industry. There are many areas where groups of small companies could be set up to provide

for the needs of their own communities. There are many community projects already in being on a small scale in London. They are experimental in nature but could well develop into a massive upsurge of small-scale activity which could be at least as profit-making as some of the huge industrial complexes which have been forced out of the centre of London. The GLC and the London boroughs are right to combine and to come to the House to put forward their suggestions as to how some of these problems can be overcome.

Mr. Cartwright: My hon. Friend referred to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) in his regrettably all-too-brief speech. In that brief interlude, the hon. Gentleman was arguing that the powers which are now being sought in the Bill are available through the NEB and the Department of Industry. He appeared to be suggesting that that was a much better way of exercising the powers because he said that the NEB was subject to Parliament and that Parliament could examine the proposals being made. Was that not the argument that the man in Whitehall or the Member of Parliament in Westminster knows better than the local authority under democratic control?

Mrs. Miller: That seems to have been the tenor of the hon. Member's argument—

Mr. Cartwright: Did my hon. Friend miss it?

Mrs. Miller: No, I did not miss it. I rarely miss anything that the hon. Member for Hampstead says, and he knows that only too well.

Mr. Ronald Brown: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) spent a long time in the late 1960s demanding that we take powers away from the Government and Parliament so that he, as a local councillor, could do so much better than they could? This shows his absolute conversion in that he prefers to have all the powers concerning local government in Parliament, Government and the NEB, and says that he has no faith whatever in his former colleagues in local government.

Mrs. Miller: I think that the hon. Member for Hampstead is bound to look at things from a different point of view now that he has graduated from Camden Council to the House of Commons, not least of all because when he was calling for an increase in the powers of local government he was the leader and in control of local government in Camden, whereas now he is on the other side of the fence, albeit in this House.
I should like now to proceed to the other aspects of the question about the way in which local authorities can create interest and activity in the London area. There is at least one clause in the Bill which is apparently acceptable to both sides, namely, that dealing with advertising the facilities that London has to offer to the world. How ludicrous it must seem to those people whose jobs have dried up in London and who have not a hope of getting a new one to see on London buses advertisements which tell them of the wonders of Welling borough and the great opportunities in Washington New Town, or the advertisement in the London papers only yesterday which said:
Come to the Roebuck Hotel, Loughton, to hear about the great benefits of taking your business out to Peterborough.
At the same time, the London boroughs are completely precluded from advertising in Peterborough or in any other part of the country or, indeed, overseas—where there is the possibility of industry being brought in to operate in this country—by these quite unfair restrictions. I mentioned in the House some time ago that I had visited the exhibition of the Industrial Development Association. There was a stand approximately the size of your Chair, Mr. Speaker, which I think you will agree is quite small when compared with a hall full of exhibits from towns in the provinces. There were glamorously dressed young ladies handing out ballpoint pens. I was sorry that I was not accompanied by a number of my male colleagues so that they too could see the glamour being displayed from almost every province and town in the country.

Mr. David Lambie: Hon. Members have enough troubles already.

Mrs. Miller: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I think that they are mostly

male Members of Parliament—but that is another story.
In this exhibition almost every town with a small industry in it was giving away gifts and displaying its wares and advertising to the world that it had a site available for development. London was in quite a different position. In that tiny area, about the size of Mr. Speaker's Chair, not only all the London boroughs but the GLC had a very modest and inexpensive stand because they were operating, almost surreptitiously, against the law stating that they are not allowed to advertise. All that they could do was to show a map of London with one or two small flags displayed on it to indicate that if anybody could get past the ballpoint pens, gifts or the brightly coloured maps being given away by the provincial towns, they might be able to find some activity for them in the London area.
This is farcical. We need industry in London. We need to be able to tell people what is available in London for them to use. I believe that the fact that Conservative Members accept this clause of the Bill indicates that they realise as much as we do that there is no hope of getting newcomers coming to London to set up in industry and to provide more jobs for our workpeople until we take the initiative in telling them what would be available if they were to come.
This ought not to be at the expense of other parts of the country. I see hon. Friends around me looking at me with great suspicion because they think that I might be suggesting depriving their areas of much-needed industrial development. But Labour Members are entitled to co-operate with each other. It is as important that the people of Leeds or Manchester or Liverpool should have employment as it is that the people of London should have their share. I apologise to any hon. Member from any other part of the country who feels that I am being unfair to him. The need is just as great, wherever people are unemployed, to stimulate the development of new industry. This is where it is up to the local authorities—and in the case of this Bill it is up to the GLC and the London boroughs in combination—to promote themselves as best they can.

Mr. Cartwright: I follow my hon. Friend's argument about London not wanting to rob other parts of the nation


of their industry, but that is just the point to which the Bill directs itself. It is seeking to enable the London boroughs and the GLC to encourage totally new industries in London and not to rob other parts of the nation of their industry.

Mrs. Miller: I believe that that is the case, but my hon. Friends from other regions are entitled to feel these suspicions. They are entitled to ask "Is London trying to steal a march on other parts of the country?" But the other parts of the country will lose if London dies. If the London boroughs are not able to maintain their rateable value, and if London workers are not able to be employed and to contribute to the rate fund and to the Inland Revenue it will be impossible for resources to be redistributed into the regions so that they, too, have an opportunity to share.

Mr. Ronald Brown: It is fairly clearly stated in Clause 12(2) that the authorisation of the Secretary of State is required, and he may apply such limits or conditions as he desires. That endorses the point which my hon. Friend rightly makes, that it is not London's intention, as it were, to seek to denude other areas of the country in the way we have suffered as a result of other areas denuding London. My hon. Friend is making clear that the wish is to advertise within a closely prescribed area, and in any event the Secretary of State would still have the final say as to how far the scheme should go.

Mrs. Miller: This is the nub of the matter in our wish to have the support of hon. Members from other parts of the country. If they were to feel that London was asking, as Opposition Members have suggested, for unlimited powers of expenditure and for an endless stream of funds to be withdrawn from efforts to meet their needs—their just needs, in view of their long-term problems—they would be entitled to say that they would not support the Bill tonight. But because the Secretary of State, if he felt that local government funds were being funneled injudiciously in this direction, would have the right to stop such a development, I am sure that our case deserves support.
I turn now to Clause 7 and the subject of admission charges at Kenwood House.

The hon. Member for Hampstead spoke of the great fuss which arose when it was suggested some years ago, during the lifetime of the previous Tory Government, that charges should be made, and he contrasted what was then said with the proposal now in Clause 7. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the situation here is quite different from that which he described. At that time the Tory Government imposed charges on all museums and art galleries, and the outcry was against those charges. That piece of Tory policy was a failure, and immediately the Labour Government took power in 1974 the charges were abolished because of the disaster which they had wrought on attendances at museums and art galleries in London.
The proposal in Clause 7 is quite different. The suggestion is that there should be charges for specific exhibitions at specific times, and this is an important element of differentiation from the earlier situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I turn next to the question of the London parks. It is unfair of hon. Members opposite to suggest that the proposals for the parks will create a new situation for Londoners. What is proposed is that, instead of 12 days as such in the course of a year for exhibitions and shows of all kinds, there should be opportunity to close the parks for the purposes of exhibitions, if necessary, for six Sundays and six other days. Again, this proposal is clearly differentiated from that which the Opposition suggest is in the Bill.
For all those reasons, I submit that this is a worthy Bill which should have the support of the whole House. I hope that hon. Members from all parts of the country will feel that they have not only the right but the duty to support the justifiable claims of the people of London and of London local government generally in wishing to put the Bill through. I am confident that we shall have the support of the House for the proposals in this Private Bill.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am very glad to have caught your eye. Mr. Speaker, because in a very real sense—

Mr. Cartwright: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 163.

Division No. 111]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Flower, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allaun, Frank
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter
Freud, Clement
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Noble, Mike


Atkinson, Norman
George, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael


Bates, Alf
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bean, R. E.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ovenden, John


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Hatton, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Bishop, E. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest


Boardman, H.
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, William (Rugby)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Horam, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Rowlands, Ted


Buchanan, Richard
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Sandelson, Neville


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Sedgemore, Brian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Janner, Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Canavan, Dennis
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sillars, James


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor
Small, William


Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stallard, A. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David


Concannon, J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Conlan, Bernard
Lambie, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Corbett, Robin
Lamborn, Harry
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cowans, Harry
Lamond, James
Tinn, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Tomlinson, John


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dalyell, Tam
Lipton, Marcus
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur
Loyden, Eddie
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Luard, Evan
Ward, Michael


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Hugh
Weitzman, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wellbeloved, James


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
White, Frank R. (Burry)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
White, James (Pollok)


Dempsey, James
Mackenzie, Gregor
Whitlock, William


Doig, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Dunn, James A.
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woof, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mendelson, John



Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. Arnold Shaw and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molloy, William
Mrs Millie Miller.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Leon
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brooke, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Drayson, Burnaby


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Kenneth
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bulmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Emery, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bottomley, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crouch, David
Fished, Sir Nigel


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)




Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhodes, James, R.


Ford, Ben
Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Lawson, Nigel
Robert, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Goodhart, Philip
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhew, Victor
Loveridge, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Tim


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Scott, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mates, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin


Griffiths, Eldon
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Shersby, Michael


Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moate, Roger
Stanley, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hodgson, Robin
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tebbit, Norman


Hordern, Peter
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John
Wakeham, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


James, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Hon George


Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy



Kilfedder, James
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. William Shelton and


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—


The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 162.

Division No. 112]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Anderson, Donald
Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Archer, Peter
Cartwright, John
Flannery, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerlad (The Wrekin)


Atkinson, Norman
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Coleman, Donald
Freud, Clement


Bates, Alf
Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bean, R. E.
Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Beith, A. J.
Corbett, Robin
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cowans, Harry
Golding, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Graham, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Boardman, H.
Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hatton, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Deakins, Eric
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Doig, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Buchanan, Richard
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunn, James A.
Huckfield, Les


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ian
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Canavan, Dennis
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hunter, Adam







Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Janner, Greville
Molloy, William
Snape, Peter


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt Hon. M. (Fulham)


John, Brynmor
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Newens, Stanley
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Nobles, Mike
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomlinson, John


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ovenden, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lambie, David
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Ward, Michael


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pavitt, Laurie
Weitzman, David


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)
Penhaligon, David
Wellbeloved, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisie)
Perry, Ernest
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Pollok)


Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Miss Jo
Whitlock, William


Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McCartney, Hugh
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roderick, Caerwyn
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


McElhone, Frank
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Ross, Ht Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Sandelson, Neville
Woodall, Alec


Mahon, Simon
Sedgemore, Brian
Woof, Robert


Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James
Mr. Arnold Shaw and


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Skinner, Dennis
Mrs. Millie Miller.


Mendelson, John






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Griffiths, Eldon
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Sir John
Monro, Hector


Blaker, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brittan, Leon
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David


Brooke, Peter
Hodgson, Robin
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Phillip
Nelson, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Buck, Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Johnson Smith G. (E Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Drayson, Burnaby
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Rhodes James, R.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon


Edward, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhart, Phillip
Mather, Carol
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Spence, John







Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stanley, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Viggers, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wakeham, John



Straddling Thomas, J.
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John
Mr. William Shelton and


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read a Second time and committed

Orders of the Day — LOCAL LOANS (INCREASE OF LIMIT)

10.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): I beg to move,
That the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.
This order seeks to increase by £2,000 million the amount available to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for lending to local authorities and other eligible authorities[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members realise that someone is trying to address the House. Mr. Denzil Davies.

Mr. Davies: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, this order seeks to increase by £2,000 million the amount available to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for lending to local authorities and other eligible authorities.
The amount was originally fixed at £2,000 million by Section 55 of the Finance Act 1975. The same Act gave the Treasury a power to increase the amount by £2,000 million at a time on three further occasions. This power is exercised by order subject to an affirmative resolution of this House. This is the second such order under the Act. The first order was debated on 15th March last year.
After tomorrow, when the next fortnightly meeting of the Commissioners takes place, the Public Works Loan Commissioners are expected to have about £120 million left available for lending. This will be used up within the next few weeks and it is essential therefore to provide the Commissioners with further lending powers to meet the demands that will be made upon them subsequently. Total gross lending by the Commissioners to local authorities for the 1976–77 financial year was £1,679 million. I should emphasise that that is a gross lending figure. It does not represent new lending only but a total of new lending and a reborrowing in respect of debts which have become repayable. For the 1977–78 financial year, our estimate is that gross lending will be about £1,900 million, although I must emphasise to the House that that is an estimate and that the actual out-turn

will depend, of course, on how far authorities resort to the market and how far they resort to the Commissioners.
Our 1977–78 estimate for net borrowing—that is, new borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board for 1977–78—is about £700 million. These forecasts for 1977–78 are not, of course, limits on what the local authorities may borrow from the Commissioners; the limit is established by the quotas and, as I have indicated, the forecasts could be exceeded.
The extra £2,000 million facility which is sought in this order is expected to provide sufficient funds to the Commissioners for the rest of the current financial year, but of course that cannot be entirely guaranteed and it may be that the third order will have to be made before rather than after the end of next March.
I should emphasise that if it were required to be made before the end of this current financial year, the reason would almost certainly not be that local authorities were spending more money but rather that they were resorting more to the Commissioners for money for capital expenditure and less to the market.
I emphasise, as I did last year, that the order does not in itself sanction any increase in local authorities' capital spending. Capital expenditure of local authorities is controlled by the Government in other ways. Thus, the order does not affect public expenditure. Nor does the extent to which local authorities borrow from the Commissioners rather than in the market affect the size of the public sector borrowing requirement.
Section 55 of the Act and the order that can be passed under it are a mechanism to allow local authorities to borrow a proportion of their financing requirements, according to their quota entitlement, from the Public Works Loan Board if they so wish. The House will know that, since 1974–75, local authorities have been entitled to borrow from the Board 30 per cent. of their reckonable capital expenditure, plus 3⅓ per cent. of their outstanding capital debts, subject to a minimum of £500,000. The figures for the less prosperous areas are 40 per cent. reckonable capital expenditure and 4 per cent. of their outstanding capital debt.
The local authorities have been informed that these quotas will remain


the same for the first six months of this current financial year and that they will be confirmed or modified for the year as a whole in October 1977. The order, therefore, is merely a mechanism to empower the Commissioners to satisfy the local authorities' needs for finance from the Public Works Loan Board. Local authorities do not, of course, have to avail themselves of this facility, they can, and indeed many do, borrow more from the market.
I am sure that the House will join me in expressing thanks to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the services which they continue to render with much skill and, of course, on an entirely voluntary basis.

Mr. Dudley Smith: How many local authorities at present avail themselves of this facility?

Mr. Davies: I cannot answer that question. Local authorities generally borrow more than half their funds from the market, as I understand it, and I cannot say how many avail themselves of this facility at any given time. Local authorities borrow from both sources from time to time.
I hope that I have made it clear that the purpose of the order is to give power to the Commissioners to help make up the difference that is required, and I hope that the House will see fit to approve it.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: On 13th March 1975, the date when the Finance Act 1975 was given the Royal Assent, the Public Works Loan Commissioners were authorised to lend £2,000 million to local authorities. A year later, on 15th March 1976, the House was told that the Commissioners had lent to local authorities all but £335 million of that first £2,000 million—in other words, that they had lent some £1·665 million, a little over one-third of the total capital expenditure of local authorities for the year 1975–76. If I read the public expenditure White Paper correctly, the figure for local authority capital expenditure for that year was £4,520 million and they borrowed some £2,783 million.
Nevertheless, the House authorised a further £2,000 million to be borrowed by

local authorities from the Commissioners. Today, a year later, we are told that the Commissioners have lent all but £120 million—that is to say, in two years they have lent local authorities £4·215 million, and for 1976–77 have lent a part of that sum against the local authority expenditure of nearly £4,000 million. According to the cash limits—this is where I get a little confused—the figure should have been about £2,800 million. It is difficult to tie up the figures in the public expenditure White Paper with the cash limits.
On those figures, whatever the House authorises tonight by way of allowing local authorities to borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, will bear little relationship to local authorities' capital expenditure. Frequently such debates as this involve the Minister saying that the matter has nothing to do with public expenditure and Back-Bench Members saying that it has everything to do with it. I join the Minister in saying that this has nothing to do with capital expenditure, which in 1976–77 was over 30 per cent. more that the cash limits set by the Government.
The House is being asked to authorise a further £2,000 million to help local authorities spend about £2,873 in 1977–78. That looks a little nearer the mark. But one becomes more confused when one looks at the limit of about £4,400 million, which does not tally with the public expenditure White Paper. We deceive ourselves if we think that by refusing, reducing or even by wishing to increase the figure we shall have any effect on the total expenditure of local authorities.
We are entitled to ask the Minister upon what estimate of that expenditure by local authorities he judges the amount that they will want to borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. That must involve a judgment upon how much they wish to borrow from that source and how much they wish to borrow from alternative sources on either the domestic market or in foreign currency.
In making that judgment one must examine the terms of loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Most local authorities can borrow 30 per cent. of their borrowing requirement from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Development area authorities can borrow 40 per cent. of their requirement. But such loans are for 10 years and are


repayable by instalments. The Commissioners offer long-term borrowing to local authorities. If local authorities do not wish to borrow in that form they can borrow either on the domestic market or abroad.
Contrary to what has been said on this side of the House on previous occasions, there is a strong argument for saying that more money should be made available for local authorities by the Public Works Loan Commissioners so that a larger proportion of local authority borrowing comes from that source and is therefore long-term. Long-term loans from the Government give greater stability to local government finance and reduce fluctuations in interest rates that occur in short-term borrowing. If money is not available from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, local authorities have an excuse for increasing their temporary borrowing, which is not desirable at present. I shall return to that, but first I want to ask one or two questions about the order itself.
The Order is made under Section 55 (2) of the Finance Act 1975. So, first, may I ask some questions directly related to that section? The section is very similar to Section 132 of the Finance Act 1972 which authorised loans up to £1,000 million at that time, with tranches of £1,000 million for each of the following three years, or on three occasions. That section of the 1975 Act authorised loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners in addition to any loans made by them under Section 132 of the Finance Act 1972.
Then it goes on to talk about the aggregate of the loans and authorises £2,000 million plus three tranches of £2,000 million each. I do not understand what is meant by
the aggregate of the loans".
Are we talking about the aggregate of the loans authorised by the 1975 Actor the aggregate of the loans authorised by the 1972 and the 1975 Acts? If it is the latter, the limit has been exceeded, and it may be that the validity of this order is in question. Be that as it may, there is now, I assume, outstanding under these two Acts some £2,000 million to £3,000 million under the 1972 Act—no doubt there were at least a couple of tranches under that—£2,000 million under the 1975

Act, and £2,000 million under last year's order. So, under this order, we are asked to increase the figure of £6,000 million, perhaps £7,000 million under these two Acts by another £2,000 million now. We are talking about £9,000 million under these two authorities.
But that does not tally with the total indebtednes of the local authorities to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Of the total loan debt of local authorities, which is now more than £25,000 million, less than half is owned to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. In 1975–76, it was £10,150 million, and I suppose that it has gone up by another £2,000 million or £3,000 million in the last year. We are really talking about increasing about £12,000 million owed by local authorities to the Public Works Loan Board by another £2,000 million—at least, I think that that is what we are talking about—

Mr. Denzil Davies: There have been repayments.

Mr. Page: There have been repayments over the past, but the figure of outstanding debt, which is given in an annex to the Layfield Report, was £10,150 million in 1975–76. I want to try to get clear what we are authorising the Public Works Loan Board to lend in total to local authorities.
Secondly, the loans are those made in pursuance of Section 3 of the National Loans Act 1968. That Act has a schedule which allows the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend to all sorts of other people other than local authorities. It may be that what they lend to other people is very insignificant. But it seems to be included in this total figure for the £2,000 million tranche that we are asked to authorise. Perhaps the Minister can give us a breakdown of that. If it is insignificant, let him put on record that that is so.
The third point on the order itself is that, under that section of the Finance Act 1975, the aggregate amount to be loaned, if we are coming up to the £2,000 million, includes both commitments as well as actual loans.
I am not sure how far ahead the Public Works Loan Board's Commissioners commit themselves. It may be that there is a substantial sum in the kitty which has not been paid out but which they


have given undertakings to pay or to lend to local authorities. If the Minister could give us some indication of that it would be helpful.
The major point we ought to be debating is the timing of this order. Whether these tranches of £2,000 million every so often—and the Minister has told us that it will not be once a year but may be more frequent—is too much or not enough depends entirely on the outcome of discussions which are now proceeding on the draft code of practice on local authority borrowing.
This draft code has come into existence in the following circumstances. Local authorities have been raising more and more short-term loans. By that I mean loans of under a year to maturity. They have been borrowing short-term to pay for their capital spending.
There is some restriction on the amount which they can borrow. They must not borrow more than 20 per cent. of their total outstanding debt nor more than one-and-a-half times last year's capital expenditure. Both those figures can be substantial. Indeed, they are substantial sums in some cases and, in addition, there are one or two loopholes. If local authorities borrow for just over the year such borrowing does not come within the restrictions. If they borrow on what is called "option borrowing", again they can get out of the restrictions.
The advantage to local authorities of borrowing in this way is that, generally speaking, the shorter the loan the lower the rate of interest. Also, they can take advantage of any drop in interest rates and any fluctuations in the rates. Many of the authorities are tempted to go in for short-term borrowing in a big way. The proportion of outstanding debts of local authorities borrowed on short term—under a year maturity—is 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. of their whole indebtedness. That is about £12,000 million.
In the West Midlands over three-quarters of its £52 million debt is on seven days' call. There is a serious risk in this. There may easily come about a liquidity crisis with this sort of borrowing, when money has to be repaid quickly. Suppose that local authority could not meet its redemption dates. We might even go so far as to have a New

York situation. It could be serious. I do not say that it is serious at the moment, but there is this risk.
The solution to this is for the Government to put statutory restrictions on short-term borrowing but at the same time to increase the availability and attraction of Public Works Loan Board borrowings.
That is why I come back to the order and say that its introduction is untimely, when this draft code of practice for cutting down short-term borrowing and swinging over to long-term borrowing is under discussion and will, if accepted, have to be backed up by making Public Works Loan Board borrowing far more attractive. The alternative to statutory restrictions is the voluntary code.
The voluntary code has been drawn up by a group of local government officials, and—if I am correctly informed—would form an agreement with local authorities to change over from this very short-term borrowing to get an average of four-year loans throughout their indebt ness in this year, working gradually to an average of seven-year loans, instead of less-than-one-year loans, by 1980.
The success or otherwise of that plan must depend on how far the Government will go in backing it with the public works loans system. That is why I think that we could have waited a little longer for this order, to see what would happen about the agreement with all local authorities and the Government on this code.
If local authorities can successfully switch to borrow long term, and have the average of their borrowings on as long as four-year terms, they will not—let us admit this—be as attracted to banks, insurance companies, developers, building societies, and pension funds, and so on as they are at present. If those sources of revenue and of capital for the local authorities were taken away, the Government would have to be prepared to step in. The only way in which it can step in is to make the public works loans system far more attractive.
It would have helped if the Minister had informed the House a little more about the progress of consideration of this draft voluntary code and if he could give us some assurance that, if we approve this order, he may well have to come back again in a fairly short time


with a back-up to the code, with a difference—perhaps an increase—in the amount available in public works loans.
I believe that the Minister said that this order would last for only six months.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I did not say that the order would last for only six months. I said that the quota limits for this year had been fixed for six months and that they would be confirmed or modified for the rest of the year at the end of the six-month period.

Mr. Page: I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. That means that the 30 per cent. quota, or the 40 per cent. quota in development areas, may be altered in the year. In those circumstances, if they were increased we should need a further amount from the Public Works Loan Board if the local authorities took advantage of that. We still have one more tranche to go under the 1975 Act, so it could be brought in this year.
I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that the Government are well disposed towards a voluntary code in this way, and that, if it needs backing up by Government assistance in making Government loans more attractive to local authorities—the loans come through the Public Works Loan Board but they come from Government sources—he will not hesitate to come to the House to ask for that authority.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is always so erudite in these matters that one hesitates to intervene in a technical subject such as this. I was sitting in the Chamber because I shall be involved in the next debate. I was amazed to hear mention of these vast sums of money being bandied about, when the draft Statutory Instrument before us is a matter of only a few lines.
My only question to the Minister is this: when we come down to it—Article 3 refers to an increase of £2,000 million in the amount which can be available—is this not a direct result of inflation and does it not underline how serious is the inflationary situation facing the country today?

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: It is, I think, symptomatic of the climate in which we live that the Minister of State made a speech lasting six minutes, to a House attended by six hon. Members, inviting us to authorise the Public Works Loan Board to increase the amount which it can lend to local authorities by £2,000 million, and that the maximum length of this debate can be only one and a half hours.
The Minister invited us to approve the order without any reference whatever to the purposes for which the loans would be made. The Minister will correct me if I misunderstood, but I believe that we are invited to assent to the order on the basis that there would be no increase in the public sector borrowing requirement. Yet if the order were denied to the Government tonight, local authorities which required to borrow money would have the facility from the Public Works Loan Board denied to them and would be compelled to make their borrowing in the market place, compelled, in effect, to go to the private sector for the £2,000 million—although, as the Minister rightly pointed, there is no sense of compulsion save to the extent that local authorities are not permitted to borrow more than a certain amount of their requirements in the market place.
I found it difficult to follow the Minister when he said that the passing of the order would make no difference to the public sector borrowing requirement. I can fully understand the argument that local authorities have to borrow somewhere the money which they require, but there is a distinction between local authorities being able to finance their requirements from the public sector—in effect, the Public Works Loan Board is a euphemism for the Government—and their being able to borrow in the market place.
I address myself to that issue, the issue whether the order will increase the public sector borrowing requirement. I think that the Minister of State, with all the briefing from the star-studded cast of faceless civil servants in the Treasury, could have presented the argument, if I may say so, with greater financial rectitude than he did. Moreover, as I have said, there was not a word about the


purposes for which this increased facility of £2,000 million would be required. When dealing with such a substantial sum of money, the Minister ought to have explained some of those purposes.
Those of us who are concerned about the level of public expenditure and the comparative ease with which orders of this kind are passed through the House ought to make at least some protest about the manner in which very large sums are authorised, as I interpret it, as an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, at this hour of the night and after just a short speech from the Minister.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I had not intended to make any contribution to the debate. I was prepared to sit and listen to it merely out of interest. However, tonight the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who, despite his political allegiance, very often talks a good deal of sense, have been somewhat outrageous, especially in respect of the comment he made about my hon. Friend the Minister. I shall not defend the Treasury. It is full of faces, and it is passing along a sort of confetti of notes that must be almost unprecedented.
The fact that we are going through these motions of giving power to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to make this money available to local authorities does not imply in any sense that we are being unnecessarily profligate or irresponsible. Those of us who have some interest in local authorities and who have been concerned with the work of devising budgets for local authorities and estimating the expenditure of local authorities and how a local authority is likely to stand in, say, 1977–78, know only too well that whichever faceless civil servant devised this concept of cash limits, certainly it is bringing a power to bear in terms of restraint on local authorities that some of us would hardly have deemed possible.
Having been associated with local authorities for some 25 years as an elected member, I know how easy it is to get into the habit of increasing expenditure by 8 per cent. per annum quite gaily, without any thought even of not being reelected on the next occasion.
However, whether what we have now is a matter for congratulation or otherwise, whatever may be the administrative devices that make it possible for local authorities to borrow within a certain ceiling, we certainly have a system of restraint on local government spending which has been difficult to handle in the current year and will be doubly difficult in both 1977–78 and 1978–79. Therefore, it is quite irresponsible for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to say that we are spending money on a grand scale at this late hour of the night and in such a circumscribed period.
I am waiting to hear the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister to the more important points raised by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), but I should like to refer to the technical point—we are all monetarists now—in relation to whether the order is significant in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement. Surely that cannot be true at all. What is important is the extent to which the Government, in making up their accounts, have found that they have gone in for deficit financing of one financial magnitude or another.
If we say that local authorities have contributed, that their component of this public sector deficit is £X billion, in a sense the operations of the Public Works Loan Commissioners are not significant in this context at all. What is significant is the public sector deficit itself and how that is financed. All that is significant there is whether it is financed outside the banking system or by resort to the banking system. I imagine that it is quite possible—although, like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I am not an expert in these matters—for any funds that are made available to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to come from sources that are completely non-inflationary. Equally, it may be said that it does not really matter in the monetarist context whether local authorities' moneys are found by the Commissioners or by borrowing in the short-term market, although that might have other consequences.
Coming from Stafforshire, which is part of the West Midlands geographically, I was horrified to hear the right hon. Member for Crosby say that short-term borrowing is up to 75 per cent. That raises some interesting problems.
Although this is perhaps the wrong time, it may be that during the next financial year the Government will use the situation that we are discussing to introduce an experimental variable interest bond. We know that at one period when there was a slight tendency for interest rates to rise it was stated in the responsible newspapers that the Government were thinking in terms of ideas that had been put forward earlier by a broking firm—namely, that the best way to tackle the problem was to have a variable interest bond.
It may be that to help local authorities and to conduct an experiment responsibly, my hon. Friend will recommend to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if there is a slight tendency in future for interest rates to harden, which I believe will be the case in the autumn, he should consider introducing variable interest bond financing into local government.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I deal first with a number of matters raised by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). In effect, the papers that have been passing to and fro are a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. When I knew that he was opposing me in the debate I took great care to ensure that there would be a supply of papers. Having experienced his great skill in asking difficult questions of Treasury Ministers in the past, I try to come as well armed as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions. I shall try to go through them although perhaps not in the order in which they were asked. As for other bodies that might be able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, I understand that housing associations are empowered to borrow. I understand that harbour authorities are also entitled to borrow. However, over the past two years there have been no loans from the Public Works Loan Board to bodies other than local authorities. The balance outstanding of loans to bodies other than local authorities at 31st March 1977 was approximately £1 million. That is in respect of the period before the past two years.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 1972 Act and how this measure ties in with it. It is my understanding that

all the funds authorised under the 1972 Act were exhausted before the 1975 Act money, as it were, started to come into operation. There was £2,000 million then arising under the 1975 Act. Last year there was the order for £2,000 million which I moved and now we have a further £2,000 million. The 1972 Act money was exhausted before the 1975 Act came into operation. Therefore, we are concerned now only with the 1975 Act.
I was also asked about commitments which had been made by the Public Works Loan Board, but where the money had not actually been advanced. I am told that commitments are entered into only a few weeks before corresponding advances take place, so the money moves out very quickly after the commitment has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned cash limits and said that he found it difficult to square the figures. There is a complicated explanation. Perhaps I could write to the right hon. Gentleman and try to explain the matter fully. As the House well knows, for 1977–78 almost all capital expenditure by local authorities is now within the cash limits regime. It should reassure the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who expressed concern about these matters, to know that the expenditure is strictly controlled.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that loans by the Public Works Loan Board were for 10 years. That is true, but it was explained to me this afternoon—though I still do not understand it—that in fact they are effectively for five years. I could not possibly explain to the House how that is so, but I was assured that although the period may appear to be 10 years it is effectively five in respect of annuity loans. Perhaps it is not as bad for local authorities as it may seem. I am sure that treasurers are well aware of this.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman said "not as bad". I was rather approving the fact that the loans were long-term. I want the local authorities to turn to long-term loans—even 10 years—rather than short-term.

Mr. Davies: I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he was saying that that was rather a long period, but I


entirely agree with what he says about longer-term borrowing.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked on the basis of what figures we arrived at the figure of gross lending which I gave in opening. He will know that in the public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 6721, capital expenditure in 1977–78 is estimated to be, and will be, £2,873 million. It is on the basis of that figure, plus an assessment of what money will have to be repaid and then reborrowed, that we arrived at the figure forecast for 1977–78.
The right hon. Gentleman then rightly dealt with the local authorities' problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) also mentioned, in relation to short-term borrowing and the need, which we accept to move towards a situation in which they are not so reliant on short-term borrowing, because of the obvious dangers. We are having discussions with the local authorities about drawing up what I hope will be a voluntary code. One does not want to use compulsion, and I hope that agreement will be reached. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that perhaps we should have waited until we had that code before introducing the order. The trouble is that we should possibly have run out of money, because there is only about £120 million left. That is why the order was brought forward.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that later in the year, if there were a code the effect of which was to force local authorities to go more to the Public Works Loan Board and away from the market, I might have to return here in a few months' time. We do not believe that that will happen. If it is necessary to come back next March rather than April, it will not be because the local authorities are spending more money. It will be for other reasons, in that local authorities will be making more use of the Board than of market funds.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) raised a point as I was sitting down at the end of my opening remarks, and I did not give him a proper answer because I did not have the figures. I am now told that in 1976–77 three-quarters of the local authorities borrowed from the Board. The figure I gave of over half total borrowings being

from the market is probably still correct, but here we are concerned with the number of local authorities.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised the point that he raised during last year's debate on this subject. I make no criticism of that. He seemed to imply that I was being profligate in coming here for this purpose, but I have not come here to spend money. Spending by local authorities, as he will appreciate, is another matter entirely and the control of expenditure is through authorisations of borrowing in respect of key sector schemes given by the Departments concerned. This is merely a mechanism to enable local authorities to borrow in one way rather than another. It does not affect the public expenditure borrowing requirement—as the hon. Member implicitly accepted, because he said that if authorities do not go to the Board they go to the market. That does not affect the public expenditure borrowing requirement because they are still borrowing.
Local authorities are allowed to borrow in the key sector areas, but this order is not concerned with the purposes of that borrowing and nor is the Public Works Loan Board. Provided that the authorities are borrowing to finance capital expenditure, they are entitled to borrow from the Board in accordance with their quotas and in accordance with legislation.
This is a way of enabling local authorities to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board. It is beneficial although, perhaps, in some cases local authorities may prefer to go to the market, and that is a matter for them to decide.
I am sure that the House will not reject the order because hon. Members will appreciate the purpose of it. If the House refused the order it would force local authorities into the market at higher interest rates with the effect on ratepayers of the authorities having to recoup the interest rates through higher rates or on Government in providing larger grants for public expenditure. I hope that I have answered all the questions and that the House will approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ANDREE PEARCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Andree Pearce was a 41 year-old woman whose parents are my constituents. They live in Leamington Spa. She was not mentally afflicted in the sense of that phrase as we would understand it, but because of her peculiar physical condition, which created certain problems for her, she became a voluntary patient at Abbeyfields Hospital at Studley in Warwickshire, which is not in my constituency.
It is a matter of crucial importance that I should state right at the outset that her condition made it vital that she should have medication every 24 hours, otherwise her life would be at risk.
On the last day of last year, 31st December 1976, Andree Pearce, who had struck up a friendship with a man patient, a Mr. Donald Newton who was detained in the hospital under the Mental Health Act, went out with him during the afternoon. They did not return. Her dead body was found in a derelict house in Redditch 13 days later. The police, of course, had been informed of the woman's disappearance and of her need for drugs because of her condition.
The parents tell me that the Medical Superintendent, Dr. Goulden, telephoned to tell them that Andree was missing. Subsequently, they contacted the hospital on a number of occasions, and when they discussed their anxieties with the superintendent, knowing that she could not survive without the right kind of medication, they allege that he seemed unconcerned about that aspect. They stressed that she would go into a coma after two days without her tablets, but he suggested that it would be perfectly simple for her and the man that she was with to approach a local doctor in the locality to obtain the necessary medicine. If that was his reaction—and I do not disbelieve my constituents—I find it totally inexplicable and in itself meriting the formal inquiry into this case that I have already requested. Indeed, my

two constituents accuse the hospital of negligence, and I certainly think that there is a case to answer. Public disquiet over what has happened can be dispelled only by an inquiry.
When Andree's body was found, the police, who appear to have acted perfectly properly throughout, contacted Mr. Pearce and asked him to go to Redditch. The hospital, however, remained aloof. It neither wrote to the parents at the time nor telephoned them to express even routine regret. As the Minister of State has already admitted to me in a letter, it was certainly at fault there.
I suggest that it was at fault in other directions, too. The hospital had Andree as a voluntary patient, but, whenever she returned home to Leamington, Mr. and Mrs. Pearce had to sign a form saying that they would be responsible for her safety. Yet she was allowed to wander off with another patient who was detained under an order, despite the fact that it was well known that her very survival depended on regular drug treatment.
Why, therefore, in the circumstances, was she not medically assessed as requiring special supervision or, if that was not available because of staff shortages, why was she not transferred to a more appropriate hospital? Surely patients who must have regular tablets or medicine on a life-or-death basis need the closest possible watch kept over their interests.
I got the distinct impression, having become involved in the case, that there was a good deal of back-tracking by officials when the facts began to come to light. Efforts were made to keep it reasonably quiet, but, thanks to the Birmingham Post, it came to light and, as a result, the parents sought my help.
I find it amazing that the coroner for the area where Andree's body was found dispensed with having an inquest, apparently on the ground that she died from natural causes—asphyxia due to an epileptic fit. Had such an unfortunate death taken place at home or in hospital, I can understand that decision being taken. But who among us would not expect a coroner's inquest if we had a relative who had disappeared and was found dead 13 days later—and in a derelict house at that?
The parents have never been told what transpired after their daughter left hospital. I understand that the police ultimately received a message from Newton's sister in Redditch indicating the whereabouts of the couple, as they understood it, at the time. A police officer was despatched to the home of Mr. Newton's niece and found him there. Newton then took the officer to a deserted house where Andree's body was discovered. I am told by the Home Office that Mr. Newton was confused as to when he had last seen her alive. I am also told that he has now been transferred to another mental institution.
I bring out these details in public because they should have been stated at an inquest and they ought also to have been given at an inquiry which the Department of Health, on the suggestion of the area health authority, refuses to hold.
I do not like naming mental patients, but I should be failing in my public duty to my constituents if I did not give all the facts as I know them. I submit that too many questions still remain unanswered in this matter. For instance, I am not satisfied that the hospital authorities emphasised to the police the urgency of tracing Andree. The attitude of the medical superintendent, if what I am told is correct, suggests that they were not particularly worried over what had happened.
I believe that this unhappy affair throws into question the whole business of voluntary patients and their supervision, particularly where, like Andree Pearce, they require regular and consistent medication in order to stay alive.
There have been a least two other cases in the Midlands during the same period where patients have wandered off and have subsequently been found dead. That is why I think it is in the Department's interests to have an inquiry into this case and why I now urge the Minister of State to have second thoughts about it. Public confidence will be restored if he does and, indeed, I can assure him that he will gain public support for such a move.
I emphasise that I am not against the principle of voluntary patients. A valuable part of the health system is to deal with the very necessary work involving

mental patients. But in cases like this our concern—and it is of paramount importance in the public interest—is that there should be greater supervision than apparently there is at present.

11.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): This is a sorry little case that we are discussing tonight. I can understand the concern of Mr. and Mrs. Pearce over the circumstances of their daughter's death. I offer my sympathy in their bereavement and I hope that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) will convey it to them on my behalf.
The essential facts are that Miss Pearce had been a voluntary patient at Abbey-fields Hospital for about two years prior to her disappearance and death. She was missed at about 6 o'clock on the evening of 31st December last year and was found dead on 12th January. A Home Office pathologist carried out an immediate post mortem and advised that Miss Pearce had died from asphyxia due to epilepsy.
I ought to give the hon. Gentleman an indication of Miss Pearce's mental and medical condition. She had been assessed by a psychologist as only just mentally handicapped. In other words, she was between the bottom of the normal range of intelligence and the range that we define as mentally handicapped. She was thus much more able than many mentally handicapped patients. Indeed, I understand that at one time she held down a full-time job. In many ways Miss Pearce's main problem was her severe epilepsy, for which she received daily medication and, to some extent, she was incontinent.
There are, of course, provisions under which patients can be compulsorily detained in hospital where this is for their own health and safety or for the protection of others, but certain additional criteria have to be met. The power which enabled detention for other than a short period is in Section 26 of the Mental Health Act. This cannot be used for a person who is over 21 years of age who is merely mentally handicapped. It can be used for persons over 21 only if they are suffering from mental illness or severe subnormality. It is clear that Miss Pearce was not severely mentally handicapped.
Epilepsy can be associated with mental conditions which would bring it within the scope of this section, but on its own it would not. In other words, there would have to be something besides epilepsy and mental illness. The Act covering these matters is the Mental Health Act 1959. A major aim of that Act was to enable the vast majority of patients to be dealt with informally and to limit the use of compulsory powers to those who are unwilling to be treated voluntarily and whose mental state is such that they cannot be left to take a decision not to seek treatment. From the information available to me this was certainly not the case with Miss Pearce who was, by all accounts, both willing to receive treatment and reliable in taking it. It seems to me that under the terms of the Mental Health Act and its philosophy she was properly a voluntary patient.
I turn to the question whether Miss Pearce was adequately supervised at Abbeyfields. This has to be considered in the light of the modern approach to caring for the mentally handicapped.
For many years the main form of residential provision for many mentally handicapped people was the large single-purpose hospitals, often situated well away from any town and with many hundreds of beds. We have come to recognise that many people formally put into these hospitals have noticeable potential and that, with the right sort of training and support, they can lead fairly independent lives and certainly do not have to spend their entire lives in hospital.
This is particularly true when, as in the case of Miss Pearce the degree of mental handicap is not severe. We seek to place great emphasis on developing patients' potential by education and training and on avoiding unnecessary segregation from the community in general. Thus it is now quite usual for mentally handicapped patients to be allowed, indeed encouraged, to leave hospital during the day and, either on their own or with a member of the hospital staff, to visit neighbouring towns and villages. The opportunity to become involved in everyday life is a significant element in treatment and rehabilitation and is encouraged.
The result of treatment in Miss Pearce's case led to her being said to have

been well integrated and happy, and she was regarded as a very reliable high grade patient. She was quite capable of travelling by bus and shopping on her own, and quite often went into Studley. Until 31st December last year she had never disappeared from the hospital unexpectedly, nor was she ever missing when her medication was due. On the basis of that the hospital staff saw no reason to discourage her visits to Studley, nor did they believe there to be a risk of her not returning for medication, which was vital to her.
During her last few months at Abbey-fields Miss Pearce formed a relationship with another patient, with whom she ultimately disappeared, and this was of concern to the hospital staff. Dr. Goulden even suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Pearce that their daughter should be transferred to another hospital nearer their home at Leamington Spa, but the Pearce family would not agree. I do not criticise them for that. They had no reason to know what was to happen. Nevertheless, that is why she was not transferred. The staff, however, had no reason to believe that the couple would disappear.
The patient with whom Miss Pearce formed a relationship was at the hospital under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act. Possibly this should have made the authorities more vigilant in their supervision of Miss Pearce. The patient concerned had a history of petty theft and indecent exposure and is alleged to have set fire to some buildings at a hospital he attended many years before. However, he had, and indeed has, no record of violence and the hospital authorities saw no reason to confine him to the hospital grounds. There is certainly no suggestion that he exercised violence towards or harmed Miss Pearce in any way.
When Miss Pearce was reported missing—this was at around 6 o'clock in the evening when her medication was scheduled—Miss Pearce's consultant informed her parents and the police were alerted. A constable visited the hospital during the same evening to get details of both patients, and the police have confirmed that the hospital made it clear to them that Miss Pearce suffered from epilepsy, was dependent on drugs and was at risk without them. On the third day after Miss Pearce's disappearance the hospital rang the police again to


emphasise the danger to her health if she was without medication.
When the hon. Gentleman wrote asking that an inquiry be set up into the circumstances surrounding Miss Pearce's disappearance, two questions seemed to be of key importance. Was there any indication of irresponsibility on the part of the hospital, and was there any failure in putting in hand efforts to find Miss Pearce?
The Warwickshire Area Health Authority had already started its own inquiries, and we considered its findings. I sent the hon. Gentleman a copy. I concluded that there was no reason to have expected the hospital staff to exercise any more supervision over Miss Pearce, or the other patient with whom she disappeared, than they did, and it is quite clear that they notified the police promptly and gave them details of the risk Miss Pearce ran through lack of medication. In these circumstances, I saw no reason to ask the area health authority to set up a formal inquiry.
There is, however, one aspect of the hospital authority's part in this sad story with which I was not happy, and that is the point which the hon. Gentleman made about the hospital's failure to contact Mr. and Mrs. Pearce after their daughter's body had been found. The hospital knew that it did not have the task of notifying Mr. and Mrs. Pearce of their daughter's death, as the police had done so, but it would have been only normal courtesy to write and express sympathy. The area health authority chairman has since tried to repair this omission by writing to Mr. and Mrs. Pearce and offering to meet them to discuss events, but they have not, so far, perhaps understandably, been prepared to take up his offer. It is still open, and if it would help them I am sure that he would be only to willing to meet them.
After Miss Pearce disappeared from the Abbeyfields Hospital, the fact was reported to the Warwickshire police. Later that day, details of both patients were circulated and the West Mercia police were asked to make inquiries of the other patient's sister, who lived in Redditch. She was visited that evening, and again on 1st and 2nd January, and asked to inform the police if she became aware of the missing persons' whereabouts. All

the uniformed patrol officers at Redditch were informed of their details and of Miss Pearce's medical condition and of the concern for her health.
Police patrols in the area, to whom Miss Pearce's companion was well known, kept observation, but it was eventually through his sister that the police learned of his whereabouts on 12th January; he had turned up at her daughter's home. The patient then took the officers to the derelict house where, it appears, he and Miss Pearce had been staying. There, Miss Pearce was unfortunately found dead. It was subsequently found after a post-mortem examination that Miss Pearce had been dead for some days.
The Chief Constable of West Mercia, who is responsible for the deployment and questions of his officers, has informed my noble Friend that he is satisfied that there was no incompetence on the part of his officers at Redditch in their efforts to trace Miss Pearce and the other patient. I point out that the police are not under any statutory duty to trace missing persons, but in a case such as this they do what they can to help. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the circumstances they made considerable effort to trace these two patients.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I appreciate that the police did all they could, given the circumstances. But did the hon. Gentleman's inquiries lead him to believe that there should have been a coroner's inquest, and, if so, what comments has he on the point?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. I am coming to the fact that there was no inquest. The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about this matter and it may be possible to say that the coroner made an error of judgment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department informs me that where a person dies a sudden death, the cause of which is unknown, the coroner has power under Section 21 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 if he is of the opinion that a post-mortem examination may prove an inquest to be unnecessary, to order such an examination to be held without opening an inquest. So the coroner had the power to act as he did.
In this case, he probably had before him the report of the Home Office pathologist which showed a post-mortem examination revealing that Miss Pearce had died from asphyxia due to an epileptic seizure, which was, in her case, a highly likely cause of death, given her general medical condition and her absence from hospital for 13 days without any medication.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I realise that this is not entirely the Minister's province but surely the chapter of circumstances—the disappearance of the woman from the hospital, her going off with a man who was under an order and who had some question marks against him, and her being found dead in a derelict house—presupposes that any normal coroner would hold an inquest.

Mr. Moyle: That might be so. Perhaps the coroner will read the hon. Member's strictures. But, like a judge, a coroner is a totally independent judiciary officer and a decision to hold an inquest is entirely for his discretion. It is not subject to political, governmental or administrative direction. Neither my right hon. Friend

nor any other Minister can comment on the way in which an individual coroner carries out his statutory duties either in general or in regard to particular cases. There is a remedy through the law but the law may only be reviewed by legal procedures.
It is open to Mr. Pearce, if he considers that the coroner has refused or neglected to hold an inquest which should be held, to make application to the High Court under Section 6 of the Coroners Act 1887, through, or with the authority of, the Attorney-General, for the court to order an inquest to be held. I cannot, of course, say whether such an application, if made, would be likely to be successful.
That is Mr. Pearce's remedy. I regret that there is nothing that my right hon. Friend can do to provide an administrative remedy. The remedy lies at law and Mr. Pearce should take legal advice, if he so wishes, about how he should proceed further along those lines.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.